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

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