ILNews

Opinions Feb. 5, 2013

February 5, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Ignacio Perez v. State of Indiana
20A03-1206-CR-247
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to suppress. Finds the detention, arrest and search incident to the arrest were reasonable and did not violate Perez’s right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The dog sniff outside his residence was reasonable and there was no violation of his rights under the Indiana Constitution. Remands for retrial.

Keiyun L. Mays v. State of Indiana
45A04-1205-CR-287
Criminal. Affirms 15-year sentence for Class B felony criminal confinement and finding that Mays is a sexually violent predator. Mays failed to establish that the process used to determine his SVP status constituted fundamental error, the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him, and that the state provided insufficient evidence to sustain the SVP finding.

Vance R. Pace v. State of Indiana
20A03-1206-PC-378
Post conviction. Reverses denial of petition for post-conviction relief. Pace’s trial counsel’s performance was deficient and Pace was prejudiced by that. Remands for a new trial.  

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of D.B., Minor Child, and His Mother, J.B.: J.B. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
87A01-1207-JT-336
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Donald Tatum v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1206-PC-331
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Eddie Rogers v. State of Indiana (NFP)

02A05-1206-CR-331
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Alfredo Lopez v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1207-CR-346
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony domestic battery.

Joshua W. Joyner v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1208-CR-618
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft.

Jereamy M. Barnes v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A05-1204-CR-209
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class A felony child molesting.

Shabbir Hussain v. Syed Ali (NFP)
85A02-1208-MF-629
Mortgage foreclosure. Affirms denial of Hussain’s petition to execute and deliver sheriff’s deed and grant of a similar competing petition filed by Ali.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of L.R., Minor Child, and Her Father, R.R.: R.R. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
76A03-1206-JT-286
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: M.A.P. (Minor Child) and M.L.P. (Father) v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services, Allen County Office (NFP)
02A03-1206-JT-254
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions at IL deadline. The Indiana Supreme Court and Court of Appeals posted no decisions by IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT