ILNews

Opinions Feb. 25, 2013

February 25, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Supreme Court decision was posted Friday after IL deadline:
Felix C. Sickels v. State of Indiana
20S03-1206-CR-308
Criminal/support. Reverses Court of Appeals and affirms trial court ruling that the custodial parent of children who have been emancipated as adults is a victim in cases of non-payment of child support.

Monday’s opinions
Indiana Court of Appeals

Jose Maldonado-Morales v. State of Indiana
20A05-1205-CR-255
Criminal. Affirms Class D felony conviction of domestic battery, ruling that a jury instruction on the doctrine of transferred intent was not an abuse of discretion and that the state was not required to prove that Maldonado-Morales knowingly or intentionally struck his ex-wife in the presence of their child.  

Steven Bethel v. State of Indiana (NFP)

71A03-1203-PC-139
Post-conviction. Affirms finding that Bethel waived claims forming the bases of his request for post-conviction relief.

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: L.M. and M.M. v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
79A02-1208-JT-678
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Juan Beamon v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1207-CR-571
Criminal. Reverses and remands conviction of Class B felony sexual misconduct with a minor, holding that the evidence was insufficient to support the charge and ordering the trial court to enter a judgment on Class C felony sexual misconduct with a minor.

James Eskridge v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1111-PC-629
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief from revocation of parole.

Tamara Downie, formerly Tamara Reed v. Jason Reed (NFP)

20A03-1208-DR-344
Domestic relations. Affirms order modifying child support.

Darrell L. Weightman and Donna Weightman v. Brian A. Nellis (NFP)

65A01-1207-CT-309
Civil tort. Affirms judgment on jury verdict in favor of Nellis on the Weightmans’ negligence claim.

Michael T. Ivy v. State of Indiana (NFP)

45A03-1207-CR-331
Criminal. Affirms sentence of conviction of battery as a Class A felony.

Shawn J. Fuller v. Carrie R. Fuller (NFP)
12A04-1205-DR-251
Domestic relations. Affirms trial court’s contempt finding and judgment in favor of Shawn Fuller.

Martel D. Cross v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A05-1207-CR-369
Criminal. Affirms 30-year sentence for conviction of Class A felony voluntary manslaughter.

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: L.W., M.R. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)

19A01-1208-JT-393
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Robert Stokes v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1206-CR-500
Criminal. Affirms convictions of murder and Class B felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon.

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