ILNews

Opinions Feb. 3, 2011

February 3, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
Clifton Mauricio v. State of Indiana
02S03-1009-PC-501
Post conviction. Reverses denial of petition for post-conviction relief and remands for re-sentencing. The Supreme Court cannot say that the trial court would have sentenced Mauricio to 50 years notwithstanding its reference to a statute that was later held to be inapplicable.

Indiana Court of Appeals
The following opinions are from Feb. 2, 2011:
Spencer R. Norvell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A02-1006-CR-696
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion for withdrawal of guilty plea.

Shane O. Bright v. State of Indiana (NFP)
58A01-1005-CR-243
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class C felony possession of methamphetamine with a firearm and Class D felony possession of cocaine.

Tra Hibbard v. State of Indiana (NFP)
28A05-1008-CR-537
Criminal. Affirms 45-year sentence following guilty plea to two counts of Class B felony operating a vehicle with a controlled substance in blood causing death and one count of Class C felony criminal recklessness with a deadly weapon resulting in serious bodily injury.

George G. Casillas v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1006-CR-370
Criminal. Affirms sentence following convictions of Class D felonies strangulation and domestic battery.

Today’s opinions
Anthonia R. McWhorter v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1006-CR-334
Criminal. Affirms 12-year sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony dealing in cocaine.

Eric Daniels v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1005-CR-531
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony burglary and Class D felony theft.

Michael Linner, et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al. (NFP)
71A04-1005-MF-391
Mortgage foreclosure. Affirms order denying the Linners' motion to correct error following entry of summary judgment against them in subsequent proceedings relating to a foreclosure action brought by Wells Fargo Bank.

Richard N. Bell v. Nancy D. Bell (NFP)
49A05-1005-DR-315
Domestic relation. Affirms disposition of the marital estate following dissolution of the Bells’ marriage.

Larry M. Gonzalez v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1005-CR-295
Criminal. Reverses one conviction of child molesting as a Class A felony and affirms the remaining three convictions of child molesting, one as a Class A felony and two as Class C felonies.  

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

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. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT