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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT