ILNews

Opinions Feb. 18, 2013

February 18, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT