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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT