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

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