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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The is an unsigned editorial masquerading as a news story. Almost everyone quoted was biased in favor of letting all illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. (Ignoring that Obama deported 3.5 million in 8 years). For some reason Obama enforcing part of the immigration laws was O.K. but Trump enforcing additional parts is terrible. I have listed to press conferences and explanations of the Homeland Security memos and I gather from them that less than 1 million will be targeted for deportation, the "dreamers" will be left alone and illegals arriving in the last two years -- especially those arriving very recently -- will be subject to deportation but after the criminals. This will not substantially affect the GDP negatively, especially as it will take place over a number of years. I personally think this is a rational approach to the illegal immigration problem. It may cause Congress to finally pass new immigration laws rationalizing the whole immigration situation.

  2. Mr. Straw, I hope you prevail in the fight. Please show us fellow American's that there is a way to fight the corrupted justice system and make them an example that you and others will not be treated unfairly. I hope you the best and good luck....

  3. @ President Snow - Nah, why try to fix something that ain't broken??? You do make an excellent point. I am sure some Mickey or Minnie Mouse will take Ruckers seat, I wonder how his retirement planning is coming along???

  4. Can someone please explain why Judge Barnes, Judge Mathias and Chief Judge Vaidik thought it was OK to re weigh the evidence blatantly knowing that by doing so was against the rules and went ahead and voted in favor of the father? I would love to ask them WHY??? I would also like to ask the three Supreme Justices why they thought it was OK too.

  5. How nice, on the day of my car accident on the way to work at the Indiana Supreme Court. Unlike the others, I did not steal any money or do ANYTHING unethical whatsoever. I am suing the Indiana Supreme Court and appealed the failure of the district court in SDIN to protect me. I am suing the federal judge because she failed to protect me and her abandonment of jurisdiction leaves her open to lawsuits because she stripped herself of immunity. I am a candidate for Indiana Supreme Court justice, and they imposed just enough sanction so that I am made ineligible. I am asking the 7th Circuit to remove all of them and appoint me as the new Chief Justice of Indiana. That's what they get for dishonoring my sacrifice and and violating the ADA in about 50 different ways.

ADVERTISEMENT