ILNews

Opinions Feb. 19, 2013

February 19, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
Ronald B. Hawkins v. State of Indiana
20S03-1208-DR-499
Domestic relation. Vacates convictions of two counts of Class C felony nonsupport of a dependent where Hawkins was tried in absentia. The record indicates that Hawkins’ failure to appear at trial did not constitute a waiver of his right to counsel. Remands for a new trial.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Ernesto Roberto Ramirez v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A05-1204-CR-224
Criminal. Affirms convictions of murder and Class D felony criminal gang activity.

Brandon E. Klein v. State of Indiana (NFP)

79A02-1201-CR-38
Criminal. Affirms convictions and sentence for Class D felony intimidation and Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy.

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of S.K.W. and D.L.W.J.: D.W. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services and Lake County Court Appointed Special Advocate (NFP)
45A03-1206-JT-293
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Thomas Clements v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1205-CR-200
Criminal. Reverses denial of verified petition to limit access to criminal history and vacates the trial court order.

Olie McNeal v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1207-CR-364
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor battery.

Megan Parker v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A05-1206-CR-327
Criminal. Affirms conviction of carrying a handgun without a license as a Class A misdemeanor.

Bradley Franks v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1205-CR-256
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Daniel Miller v. State of Indiana (NFP)
88A01-1205-CR-228
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class A felony burglary and Class B felony rape.

Tyrone Frazier v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A02-1202-PC-113
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Metropolitan Property & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Gary Darland (NFP)
53A01-1204-PL-179
Civil plenary. Affirms a covered loss under the MetLife policy occurred and the trial court properly awarded Darland $42,370 for the total loss of a boat and trailer. Reverses loss of use damages to Darland for the 2010 boating season.

Ricky L. Flake v. State of Indiana (NFP)
73A05-1207-CR-356
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony operating a vehicle after suspension.

Luke White v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1206-CR-477
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony aggravated battery and Class C felony battery.

Anthony E. Thomas v. State of Indiana (NFP)

20A03-1208-CR-377
Criminal. Affirms revocation of placement in work release center.

The Indiana Tax Court issued no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions by IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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!

ADVERTISEMENT