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. Hi there I really need help with getting my old divorce case back into court - I am still paying support on a 24 year old who has not been in school since age 16 - now living independent. My visitation with my 14 year old has never been modified; however, when convenient for her I can have him... I am paying past balance from over due support, yet earn several thousand dollars less. I would contact my original attorney but he basically molest me multiple times in Indy when I would visit.. Todd Woodmansee - I had just came out and had know idea what to do... I have heard he no longer practices. Please help1

  2. Yes diversity is so very important. With justice Rucker off ... the court is too white. Still too male. No Hispanic justice. No LGBT justice. And there are other checkboxes missing as well. This will not do. I say hold the seat until a physically handicapped Black Lesbian of Hispanic heritage and eastern religious creed with bipolar issues can be located. Perhaps an international search, with a preference for third world candidates, is indicated. A non English speaker would surely increase our diversity quotient!!!

  3. First, I want to thank Justice Rucker for his many years of public service, not just at the appellate court level for over 25 years, but also when he served the people of Lake County as a Deputy Prosecutor, City Attorney for Gary, IN, and in private practice in a smaller, highly diverse community with a history of serious economic challenges, ethnic tensions, and recently publicized but apparently long-standing environmental health risks to some of its poorest residents. Congratulations for having the dedication & courage to practice law in areas many in our state might have considered too dangerous or too poor at different points in time. It was also courageous to step into a prominent and highly visible position of public service & respect in the early 1990's, remaining in a position that left you open to state-wide public scrutiny (without any glitches) for over 25 years. Yes, Hoosiers of all backgrounds can take pride in your many years of public service. But people of color who watched your ascent to the highest levels of state government no doubt felt even more as you transcended some real & perhaps some perceived social, economic, academic and professional barriers. You were living proof that, with hard work, dedication & a spirit of public service, a person who shared their same skin tone or came from the same county they grew up in could achieve great success. At the same time, perhaps unknowingly, you helped fellow members of the judiciary, court staff, litigants and the public better understand that differences that are only skin-deep neither define nor limit a person's character, abilities or prospects in life. You also helped others appreciate that people of different races & backgrounds can live and work together peacefully & productively for the greater good of all. Those are truths that didn't have to be written down in court opinions. Anyone paying attention could see that truth lived out every day you devoted to public service. I believe you have been a "trailblazer" in Indiana's legal community and its judiciary. I also embrace your belief that society's needs can be better served when people in positions of governmental power reflect the many complexions of the population that they serve. Whether through greater understanding across the existing racial spectrum or through the removal of some real and some perceived color-based, hope-crushing barriers to life opportunities & success, movement toward a more reflective representation of the population being governed will lead to greater and uninterrupted respect for laws designed to protect all peoples' rights to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness. Thanks again for a job well-done & for the inevitable positive impact your service has had - and will continue to have - on countless Hoosiers of all backgrounds & colors.

  4. Diversity is important, but with some limitations. For instance, diversity of experience is a great thing that can be very helpful in certain jobs or roles. Diversity of skin color is never important, ever, under any circumstance. To think that skin color changes one single thing about a person is patently racist and offensive. Likewise, diversity of values is useless. Some values are better than others. In the case of a supreme court justice, I actually think diversity is unimportant. The justices are not to impose their own beliefs on rulings, but need to apply the law to the facts in an objective manner.

  5. Have been seeing this wonderful physician for a few years and was one of his patients who told him about what we were being told at CVS. Multiple ones. This was a witch hunt and they shold be ashamed of how patients were treated. Most of all, CVS should be ashamed for what they put this physician through. So thankful he fought back. His office is no "pill mill'. He does drug testing multiple times a year and sees patients a minimum of four times a year.

ADVERTISEMENT