ILNews

Opinions Feb. 7, 2011

February 7, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Ricky E. Graham v. State of Indiana
22A01-1008-PC-392
Post conviction. Affirms post-conviction relief court properly rejected Graham’s claims of an inadequate factual basis or ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, and claims of fundamental error. The PCR court’s findings don’t support its rejection of his claim that his plea was illusory or involuntary. Remands for a new PCR hearing to address that issue and the question of the effectiveness of his trial counsel on the grounds raised in his PCR petition, should he resubmit his subpoena request for his trial counsel to appear at the new hearing.

C.H., M.H. and J.S. v. J.D.
29A05-1004-DR-204
Domestic relation. Reverses grant of J.D.’s visitation petition regarding his biological child A.H., who has been adopted. Indiana Code Section 31-19-16-2 is the exclusive means for asserting visitation rights and J.D. did not follow the procedures listed therein. Remands with instructions to vacate the grant of visitation. Judge Crone concurs in result.

Jerry Ehman v. Mary Ehman
48A02-1006-DR-691
Domestic relation. Reverses $31,322 award to Mary, the full amount set forth in the original divorce decree involving her share of Jerry’s retirement account. After the decree was issued, the account declined dramatically due to a drop in the value of General Motors stock. Mary was in the best position to avoid the loss and her failure to submit the Qualified Domestic Relations Order and seek assistance from the trial court in a timely fashion contributed to the dramatic decline in the value of the personal savings plan. Remands with instructions.

Dustan Slade v. State of Indiana
38A02-1007-CR-875
Criminal. Affirms 20-year executed sentence following guilty plea to Class A felony dealing in cocaine. Judicial estoppel does not apply here, and the trial court did not erroneously conclude that his sentence was non-suspendible below 20 years when the state dismissed its firearm sentence enhancement allegation pursuant to the written plea agreement. The trial court concluded it was required to execute at least 20 years of his 30-year sentence because the judge found Slade possessed a firearm during the commission of the crime based on the pre-sentence investigation report.

Arthur Davis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1006-CR-742
Criminal. Affirms two convictions of Class B felony robbery.

Tracy J. Talley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1006-CR-641
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor trespass.

Matter of the Civil Commitment of J.G. v. Community Hospital North/Gallahue Mental Health Services (NFP)
49A02-1008-MH-835
Mental health. Affirms order involuntarily committing J.G. to the custody of Community North Hospital/Gallahue Mental Health Services for 90 days.

Dale G. Catron v. State of Indiana (NFP)
24A05-1007-CR-535
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation after Catron stopped paying restitution.

Carl Andre Coleman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A05-1008-CR-553
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for Class B felony burglary and Class D felony criminal confinement.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of Z.S. and A.P.; T.S. v. Knox County DCS (NFP)
42A01-1006-JT-312
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Lewis C. Woodward v. State of Indiana (NFP)
10A01-1008-CR-396
Criminal. Dismisses appeal of motion to dismiss charges of Class D felony sexual battery, Class D felony residential entry, and Class B misdemeanor public intoxication.

S.S. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1004-JV-493
Juvenile. Affirms order committing S.S. to the Indiana Department of Correction.

Lawrence Lusk v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1007-CR-433
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony carrying a handgun without a license with a prior conviction.

Darrick Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1008-CR-856
Criminal. Affirms aggregate 40-year sentence following convictions of Class A felony burglary and Class A felony robbery.

Paul Rogers v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1005-CR-585
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class B felony burglary and remands for a new trial.

D.K. v. Review Board (NFP)
93A02-1006-EX-639
Civil. Affirms denial of request for unemployment benefits.

James Roberson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
22A04-1001-CR-100
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea and sentence for Class A felony robbery resulting in serious bodily injury.

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT