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. 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