ILNews

Opinions Feb. 23, 2012

February 23, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Eriberto Quiroz v. State of Indiana
49A02-1107-CR-577
Criminal. Reverses Quiroz’s conviction of Class C felony child molesting because that conviction along with a Class A felony child molesting conviction constitutes double jeopardy as the same evidence supports both convictions. Remands for the trial court to vacate the Class C felony conviction. The trial court did not commit fundamental error in including in the jury instructions a copy of the charging information that included the counts against Quiroz that had previously been dismissed.

Bernard Short v. State of Indiana
49A02-1105-CR-403
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the results of the certified chemical breath test nor did it err by rejecting Short’s proposed jury instruction.

Keith Woodson v. State of Indiana
49A02-1108-PC-768
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief. The post-conviction court was not clearly erroneous in finding that attorney Harper’s cross-examination of Owens and Johnson was not ineffective and that Harper was not ineffective for not attempting to procure the services of an eyewitness identification expert for Woodson’s second trial.

In the Matter of the Guardianship of John S. Zakrowski; Marsha L. Cummins v. Thomas L. Zakrowski (NFP)
71A03-1105-GU-259
Guardianship. Affirms denial of Cummins’ application for permission to participate in the guardianship proceedings.

S.D. v. B.D. (NFP)
41A01-1104-DR-170
Domestic relation. Affirms granting primary physical custody to mother. Reverses finding of contempt for father’s failure to pay for day care.

Sandra Rivas v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1106-CR-544
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft.

Jeffrey Roser v. Jennifer Roser (NFP)
38A02-1106-DR-502
Domestic relation. Affirms decision to lower father’s obligation to the minimum support obligation and remands for the trial court to revise the obligation to $18.

Daniel O'Reilly v. Ruth Doherty (NFP)
29A04-1108-DR-399
Domestic relation. Affirms order husband pay $30,000 of wife’s attorney fees.

Charles Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
58A01-1104-CR-191
Criminal. Affirms 20-year sentence for Class B felony dealing in a schedule II controlled substance.

Kenneth Willis Gibbs-El v. Arthur Hegewald (NFP)
49A02-1107-CT-747
Civil tort. Affirms dismissal of Gibbs-El’s complaint against a former employee of the Indiana Department of Correction.

Hawkins Auto Stores, Inc. v. Brent F. Hehr (NFP)
89A01-1110-SC-461
Small claim. Affirms order that Hawkins Auto Stores pay Hehr $3,395 for repayment of funds paid by Hehr for services he never received.

Joseph Apongule v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A04-1109-CR-543
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Joseph Buser, Montgomery County Chief Prosecutor, has been involved in both representing the State of Indiana as Prosecutor while filing as Representing Attorney on behalf of himself and the State of Indiana in Civil Proceedings for seized cash and merchandise using a Verified Complaint For Forfeiture of Motor Vehicle, Us Currency And Reimbursement Of Costs, as is evident in Montgomery County Circuit Court Case Number 54C01-1401-MI-000018, CCS below, seen before Judge Harry Siamas, and filed on 01/13/2014. Sheriff Mark Castille is also named. All three defendants named by summons have prior convictions under Mr. Buser, which as the Indiana Supreme Court, in the opinion of The Matter of Mark R. McKinney, No. 18S00-0905-DI-220, stated that McKinney created a conflict of interest by simultaneously prosecuting drug offender cases while pocketing assets seized from defendants in those cases. All moneys that come from forfeitures MUST go to the COMMON SCHOOL FUND.

  2. I was incarcerated at that time for driving while suspended I have no felonies...i was placed on P block I remember several girls and myself asking about voting that day..and wasn't given a answer or means of voting..we were told after the election who won that was it.

  3. The number one way to reduce suffering would be to ban the breeding of fighting dogs. Fighting dogs maim and kill victim dogs Fighting dogs are the most essential piece of dog fighting Dog fighting will continue as long as fighting dogs are struggling to reach each other and maul another fih.longaphernalia

  4. Oh, and you fail to mention that you deprived the father of far FAR more time than he ever did you, even requiring officers to escort the children back into his care. Please, can you see that you had a huge part in "starting the war?" Patricia, i can't understand how painfully heartbreak ithis ordeal must have been for you. I read the appellate case and was surprised to see both sides of the story because your actions were harmful to your child; more so than the fathers. The evidence wasn't re weighed. It was properly reviewed for abuse of discretion as the trial court didn't consider whether a change of circumstance occurred or follow and define the statutes that led to their decision. Allowing a child to call a boyfriend "daddy" and the father by his first name is unacceptable. The first time custody was reversed to father was for very good reason. Self reflection in how you ultimately lost primary custody is the only way you will be able heal and move forward. Forgiveness of yourself comes after recognition and I truly hope you can get past the hurt and pain to allow your child the stability and care you recognized yourself that the father provides.

  5. Patricia, i can't understand how painfully heartbreak ithis ordeal must have been for you. I read the appellate case and was surprised to see both sides of the story because your actions were harmful to your child; more so than the fathers. The evidence wasn't re weighed. It was properly reviewed for abuse of discretion as the trial court didn't consider whether a change of circumstance occurred or follow and define the statutes that led to their decision. Allowing a child to call a boyfriend "daddy" and the father by his first name is unacceptable. The first time custody was reversed to father was for very good reason. Self reflection in how you ultimately lost primary custody is the only way you will be able heal and move forward. Forgiveness of yourself comes after recognition and I truly hope you can get past the hurt and pain to allow your child the stability and care you recognized yourself that the father provides.

ADVERTISEMENT