ILNews

Opinions Feb. 28, 2011

February 28, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
David E. Schalk v. State of Indiana
53A01-1005-CR-210
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor attempted possession of marijuana. Schalk arranged a drug buy to try to discredit a witness against his client. An attorney is not exempt from criminal law even if his only purpose is the defense of his client.

Tommie L. Dye v. State of Indiana
49A02-1007-CR-741
Criminal. Reverses conviction of failure to register as a sex offender as a Class C felony. Given the fact that Dye is illiterate, was not assisted when registering, and complied with Indiana Code Section 11-8-8-12(c) by appearing in person every seven days, the evidence is insufficient to convict him of failing to register as a sex offender.

Derrick Smith v. State of Indiana
79A04-1003-CR-139
Criminal. Vacates convictions of conspiracy to commit dealing in cocaine and dealing in cocaine, which were merged. Smith did not waive his right to be tried within 70 days and the trial court erred by not dismissing the charges.

B & B, LLC v. Lake Erie Land Company
45A04-1002-PL-183
Civil plenary. Reverses trial court’s grant of Lake Erie’s motion for judgment on the evidence and remands for further proceedings. The trial court erred in determining that B&B’s action was barred by the common enemy doctrine and that its claims against Lake Erie should have been permitted to proceed.

Hannah Lakes v. Grange Mutual Casualty Company
89A05-1009-CT-549
Civil tort. Reverses summary judgment for Grange Mutual. Finds Lakes is entitled to underinsured motorist coverage under her sister’s policy and that $44,900 is available to her under Grange Mutual’s coverage.

Jezrael Vaughn v. State of Indiana (NFP)
58A05-1007-CR-469
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony dealing in a controlled substance.

Terrence T. Miller v. State of Indiana (NFP)
09A02-1009-CR-1014
Criminal. Affirms denial of request to withdraw guilty plea to Class B felony armed robbery.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of K.S.; T.S. & R.D. v. IDCS (NFP)
27A02-1007-JT-816
Juvenile. Dismisses cause with prejudice because the parents failed to timely file a notice of appeal.

M.A.-G. v. J.G. (NFP)
30A05-1002-DR-230
Domestic relation. Affirms denial of M.A.-G.’s motion to relocate.

Eric Markwith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1007-CR-756
Criminal. Affirms revocation of placement in community corrections.

Rebecca Zoborosky v. Brian Zoborosky (NFP)
46A04-1010-DR-702
Domestic relation. Affirms dissolution decree that divided the marital assets.

Khaleeq Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1007-CR-415
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license.

Barry Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
27A04-1006-CR-374
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Tyrone L. Jones v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1006-PC-687
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

D.H. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1005-JV-540
Juvenile. Affirms the true finding that D.H. committed Class C felony child molesting if committed by an adult.

Constance Phillips v. State of Indiana (NFP)
31A01-1007-CR-409
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and order Phillips serve part of the suspended portions of her sentences.

Merritt A. Salyer v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A05-1006-CR-419
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony resisting law enforcement, and Class A misdemeanors resisting law enforcement and operating a vehicle on a highway while license is suspended or revoked.

The Paternity of M.C.; A.H. . Mi.C. (NFP)
30A01-1005-JP-256
Criminal. Affirms order awarding physical custody of daughter to Mi.C.

Gregory Jacob v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1004-CR-584
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony criminal deviate conduct, Class C felony intimidation, Class C felony sexual battery, and Class B felony criminal confinement. Reverses sentence and remands with instructions for the trial court to issue an order and make any other docket entries necessary to revise Jacob’s sentence for criminal confinement, as a Class B felony, to 16 years.

Gregory Sausaman v. Jennifer Hutchens (NFP)
43A03-1008-DR-421
Domestic relation. Reverses order granting Hutchens’ motion for judgment on the evidence on Sausaman’s motion for a change of custody. Remands for further proceedings.

Eric Daniels v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1005-CR-513
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Angela L. Bauer v. David B. Bauer (NFP)
22A05-1003-DR-191
Domestic relation. Affirms order denying Angela’s motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 60(B).

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.


The Indiana Supreme Court granted 4 transfers and denied 25 for the week ending Feb. 25.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT