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. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. 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

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT