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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT