Indiana Court of Appeals
Jim A. Edsall v. State of Indiana
57A03-1205-CR-240
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to five counts of Class A felony delivery of methamphetamine and one count
of Class A felony conspiracy to manufacture meth. There is no indication that the trial court considered alleged inaccurate
and irrelevant testimony when sentencing him, and his sentence is appropriate based on his character and nature of his offenses.
Reverses order of restitution as part of Edsall’s sentence because the trial court had not authority to order restitution
in this case.
Alex Carrillo v. State of Indiana
49A05-1108-PC-437
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief. Carrillo failed to show an objectively reasonable
probability that but for his counsel’s failure to advise him of possible adverse immigration consequences, he would
have decided to decline his guilty plea.
Alex Carrillo v. State of Indiana
49A02-1112-PC-1209
Post conviction. Affirms denial of PCR petition. The post-conviction court properly considered Carrillo’s attorney’s
knowledge in assessing whether his attorney’s performance was deficient, and the court did not err in concluding that
Carrillo failed to carry his burden to show that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.
Michael R. Sudberry v. State of Indiana
45A03-1206-CR-298
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony battery resulting in serious bodily injury. The trial court did not abuse
its discretion by admitting evidence that Sudberry had previously threatened his brother and there was sufficient evidence
to rebut his claim of self-defense.
Jerome Scott Mattingly v. Juan William Smith and Julie Ann Smith and Sharon O'Connell and Daniel
E. Richards, Vernuse Mings and Meredith Mings, Glen H. Macphee and Carol S. Macphee, et al. (NFP)
55A05-1203-PL-142
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court conclusion that a plat of survey unambiguously created an express easement, thereby precluding
consideration of extrinsic evidence and that the existence of that easement excused Mattingly’s actions.
Dennis L. Lloyd, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
30A04-1207-CR-431
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony possession of cocaine and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.
Robert D. Bowen v. State of Indiana (NFP)
08A02-1206-CR-504
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for Class B felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon,
Class C felony dealing in a schedule IV controlled substance, Class D felony possession of a controlled substance and Class
A misdemeanor possession of marijuana.
Nancie Hale, as Next Friend of John Doe v. Randolph County Kids, Inc. d/b/a Camp Yale, Randolph County Department
of Community Corrections, Camp Kidz-Kan-Du, et al. (NFP)
89A01-1206-CT-246
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment to Nautilus Insurance Co. and the reformed policy limits of $100,000 per occurrence
and $300,000 aggregate instead of $1 million per occurrence and $2 million aggregate.
The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions at IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals
posted no Indiana decisions by IL deadline.














Qualified immunity, means that if you wear a badge, you are exempt from law and free to do anything you please! The courts will back badge toting individuals, because they think they are above the law as well. They think, they have judicial immunity, they do not.
Deeply, deeply concerned? I'll bet if it was the judge's money that had been swindled we'd see deep concern with actual consequences. First a Ponzi scheme, then a shell game with the assets…c'mon, hasn't Conour abused the judicial system and his clients long enough? I say enough already.
Wow, just wow.
Forcing a defendant to wear a stun belt, in court or otherwise, is a violation of american principles! It is also unconstitutional!
So, if I save $100.00 cash per week, from my $500.00 per week paycheck, for 50 years, at which time, I will have saved $260,000.00, the government can raid my home and take my money, just by saying it is drug money! Shouldn't the government, have some kind of evidence of drugs, rather, than just saying we are the government and we will take anything you own, anytime we choose? Tyranny is upon us! If you don't know your rights, you don't have any!