ILNews

Opinions Feb. 26, 2013

February 26, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Paul M. Brock v. State of Indiana
79A04-1208-CR-433
Criminal. Affirms trial court sentence of 12 years on convictions of Class C felony auto theft; Class D felony intimidation; Class A misdemeanors resisting law enforcement, striking a law enforcement animal, and operating a vehicle while intoxicated; and a habitual offender enhancement. The court held that the sentence was not impermissible double enhancement, was not inappropriate, and that the court did not abuse its discretion when it considered Brock’s prior behavior while incarcerated.

Curves for Women Angola An Indiana Partnership, Dan Cole, and Lori Cole v. Flying Cat, LLC
76A04-1206-PL-312
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court ruling in favor of the Flying Cat, holding that after a divorce, the ex-husband could be bound to a partnership agreement he signed to establish the business, and thus was liable for unpaid rent.

Dennis Ray Smith v. State of Indiana

82A01-1204-CR-175
Criminal. Affirms in part, reverses in part, and remands with instructions for the trial court to vacate two convictions for Class A felony child molesting by sexual deviate conduct. It also found the lower court did not err in admitting Smith’s recorded statement to police into evidence but ruled the defendant did make an objection to its admission during a bench conference.  

Pedro Alvarez v. State of Indiana
09A02-1203-CR-241
Criminal. Reverses and remands a sentence of 40 years in prison on conviction of two counts of Class B felony dealing in cocaine, holding that consecutive sentences imposed for two separate police-sponsored drug buys were inappropriate.

Paul Sparks v. State of Indiana

49A02-1207-CR-593
Criminal. Reverses revocation of probation, holding that the trial court did not provide an evidentiary hearing that comported with Sparks’ due process and remands to the trial court for a new probation revocation hearing.

Joseph K. Strong v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1207-CR-535
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony burglary and Class D felony theft.

Edgar Duncan v. State of Indiana (NFP)

29A04-1209-CR-450
Criminal. Affirms Class C misdemeanor conviction of operating a vehicle while intoxicated.

In Re: The Paternity of J.P.; J.H. v. P.P. (NFP)

43A03-1206-JP-300
Juvenile. Remands custody petition for reconsideration of evidence relating to a counselor’s assessment and knowledge of alleged threats made by father and to resolve father’s contempt petitions against mother.

Jose Morales v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A02-1207-CR-607
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence of 50 years in prison on two counts of Class A felony child molesting.

Jerry L. Moore v. State of Indiana (NFP)

90A05-1207-CR-370
Criminal. Affirms 15-year executed sentence for conviction of Class B felony dealing in a schedule III controlled substance.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: B.H., (Minor Child) and K.H.L. (Mother) v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
36A01-1209-JT-416
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Stanley Short v. State of Indiana (NFP)

69A01-1206-CR-268
Criminal. Affirms aggregate sentence of 75 years in prison for convictions of Class A felony rape and criminal deviate conduct; and Class B felony, Class C felony and Class A misdemeanor charges of battery.

In Re: The Matter of A.R., et al., Alleged Children in Need of Services: T.M. v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)

52A02-1205-JC-388
Juvenile custody. On rehearing, affirms original opinion affirming the trial court finding that mother neglected to ensure the children received proper care.

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

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The voices of the prophets are more on blogs than subway walls these days, Dawn. Here is the voice of one calling out in the wilderness ... against a corrupted judiciary ... that remains corrupt a decade and a half later ... due to, so sadly, the acquiescence of good judges unwilling to shake the forest ... for fear that is not faith .. http://www.ogdenonpolitics.com/2013/09/prof-alan-dershowitz-on-indiana.html

  2. So I purchased a vehicle cash from the lot on West Washington in Feb 2017. Since then I found it the vehicle had been declared a total loss and had sat in a salvage yard due to fire. My title does not show any of that. I also have had to put thousands of dollars into repairs because it was not a solid vehicle like they stated. I need to find out how to contact the lawyers on this lawsuit.

  3. It really doesn't matter what the law IS, if law enforcement refuses to take reports (or take them seriously), if courts refuse to allow unrepresented parties to speak (especially in Small Claims, which is supposedly "informal"). It doesn't matter what the law IS, if constituents are unable to make effective contact or receive any meaningful response from their representatives. Two of our pets were unnecessarily killed; court records reflect that I "abandoned" them. Not so; when I was denied one of them (and my possessions, which by court order I was supposed to be able to remove), I went directly to the court. And earlier, when I tried to have the DV PO extended (it expired while the subject was on probation for violating it), the court denied any extension. The result? Same problems, less than eight hours after expiration. Ironic that the county sheriff was charged (and later pleaded to) with intimidation, but none of his officers seemed interested or capable of taking such a report from a private citizen. When I learned from one officer what I needed to do, I forwarded audio and transcript of one occurrence and my call to law enforcement (before the statute of limitations expired) to the prosecutor's office. I didn't even receive an acknowledgement. Earlier, I'd gone in to the prosecutor's office and been told that the officer's (written) report didn't match what I said occurred. Since I had the audio, I can only say that I have very little faith in Indiana government or law enforcement.

  4. One can only wonder whether Mr. Kimmel was paid for his work by Mr. Burgh ... or whether that bill fell to the citizens of Indiana, many of whom cannot afford attorneys for important matters. It really doesn't take a judge(s) to know that "pavement" can be considered a deadly weapon. It only takes a brain and some education or thought. I'm glad to see the conviction was upheld although sorry to see that the asphalt could even be considered "an issue".

  5. In response to bryanjbrown: thank you for your comment. I am familiar with Paul Ogden (and applaud his assistance to Shirley Justice) and have read of Gary Welsh's (strange) death (and have visited his blog on many occasions). I am not familiar with you (yet). I lived in Kosciusko county, where the sheriff was just removed after pleading in what seems a very "sweetheart" deal. Unfortunately, something NEEDS to change since the attorneys won't (en masse) stand up for ethics (rather making a show to please the "rules" and apparently the judges). I read that many attorneys are underemployed. Seems wisdom would be to cull the herd and get rid of the rotting apples in practice and on the bench, for everyone's sake as well as justice. I'd like to file an attorney complaint, but I have little faith in anything (other than the most flagrant and obvious) resulting in action. My own belief is that if this was medicine, there'd be maimed and injured all over and the carnage caused by "the profession" would be difficult to hide. One can dream ... meanwhile, back to figuring out to file a pro se "motion to dismiss" as well as another court required paper that Indiana is so fond of providing NO resources for (unlike many other states, who don't automatically assume that citizens involved in the court process are scumbags) so that maybe I can get the family law attorney - whose work left me with no settlement, no possessions and resulted in the death of two pets (etc ad nauseum) - to stop abusing the proceedings supplemental and small claims rules and using it as a vehicle for harassment and apparently, amusement.

ADVERTISEMENT