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

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 appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT