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. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  2. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  3. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  4. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  5. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

ADVERTISEMENT