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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT