ILNews

Opinions Feb. 8, 2012

February 8, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals had posted no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Bei Bei Shuai v. State of Indiana
49A02-1106-CR-486
Criminal. Reverses trial courts’ denial of Shuai’s request to be released on bail. The defense presented sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that Shuai is guilty of murder of her child. Remands for a determination of bail. Declines to adopt Shuai’s argument that the murder statute is ambiguous as applied to her. Affirms denial of her motion to dismiss. Judge Riley concurs in part and dissents in part.

Joey Jennings v. State of Indiana

53A01-1010-CR-541
Criminal. Grants rehearing to address the state’s argument that the original holding conflicts with a prior decision from the Indiana Supreme Court, but affirms earlier decision in all respects. The current statute supersedes the holding of Smith.

Anthony T. White v. State of Indiana
18A05-1108-CR-439
Criminal. Affirms classification of White as a credit restricted felon. The credit restricted felon statute plainly applies and it is of no moment that White pleaded guilty to Class B felony child molesting instead of Class A felony child molesting.

In Re the Paternity of N.T.; B.T. v. D.K. and K.K.
09A02-1108-JP-693
Juvenile. Reverses order granting stepfather K.K.’s motion for change of venue from the judge. Father B.T.’s application for contempt did not elevate K.K. to the status of a party in the underlying civil action entitling him to a change of venue from the judge. On remand, K.K. will be entitled to statutorily prescribed due process protections in any contempt proceeding before the paternity court.

Zuri K. Jackson v. Demetrius Holiness
02A03-1103-RS-99
Reciprocal support. Affirms grant of Holiness’ motion to dismiss Jackson’s petition for modification of child support. Based on I.C. 31-18-6-11, an Indiana court cannot have subject matter jurisdiction to modify the child support here instead of in Maryland. That statute is not preempted by the Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act.

Kevin M. Timko v. State of Indiana (NFP)

84A05-1104-CR-228
Criminal. Remands with instructions that the trial court correct the judgment and recalculate the credit time to which Timko is entitled. Affirms convictions of and sentence for two counts of Class A felony child molesting, two counts of Class A felony criminal deviate conduct, and Class C felony child exploitation.

Vincent L. Gant v. State of Indiana (NFP)
85A02-1107-CR-674
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for Class B felonies dealing in methamphetamine and dealing in a schedule I, II or III controlled substance. Remands for a correction of the sentencing order.

David L. Scudder v. State of Indiana (NFP)
16A04-1104-CR-207
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felonies theft and official misconduct.

Elizabeth A. McQuinn v. Michael T. McQuinn (NFP)
29A02-1107-DR-689
Domestic relation. Affirms order modifying Michael McQuinn’s parenting time and finding Elizabeth McQuinn in contempt of court for interfering with father’s parenting time.

Kristina L. Phillips v. State of Indiana (NFP)

87A05-1105-CR-303
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony neglect of a dependent.

Jay Unger v. State of Indiana (NFP)
67A01-1102-PC-32
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief but remands with instructions that the trial court determine the amount of restitution, if any, Unger has not yet paid, and to fix the manner of payment.

Ravonte L. Love v. State of Indiana (NFP)

18A02-1106-CR-575
Criminal. Affirms order Love serve the remainder of his previously suspended sentence following revocation of home detention.

Leslie E. Foreman v. State of Indiana (NFP)

22A04-1108-CR-467
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony child solicitation and Class A misdemeanor indecent exposure.

Angela M. Lemarr v. State of Indiana (NFP)

20A05-1105-CR-258
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor false informing.

Richard M. Ford v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A02-1107-CR-671
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony domestic battery.

Michael D. Wright, Sr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)

47A01-1106-CR-289
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and the execution of previously suspended sentences.

Kenneth A. Horton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1105-CR-231
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felony robbery and Class D felony auto theft.

Joe Songer, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
64A03-1101-CR-41
Criminal. Affirms sentence for two counts of Class C felony burglary.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of K.M.: H.M. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
27A05-1107-JT-329
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Edwin Mauricio Parrillas d/b/a Hispano America Auto Sales v. Los Amigos Auto Sales, Inc. (NFP)
82A04-1104-SC-228
Small claim. Affirms judgment in favor of Los Amigos Auto Sales in its claim for $2,000, plus $1,000 in damages.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Can I get this form on line,if not where can I obtain one. I am eligible.

  2. What a fine example of the best of the Hoosier tradition! How sad that the AP has to include partisan snark in the obit for this great American patriot and adventurer.

  3. Why are all these lawyers yakking to the media about pending matters? Trial by media? What the devil happened to not making extrajudicial statements? The system is falling apart.

  4. It is a sad story indeed as this couple has been only in survival mode, NOT found guilty with Ponzi, shaken down for 5 years and pursued by prosecution that has been ignited by a civil suit with very deep pockets wrenched in their bitterness...It has been said that many of us are breaking an average of 300 federal laws a day without even knowing it. Structuring laws, & civilForfeiture laws are among the scariest that need to be restructured or repealed . These laws were initially created for drug Lords and laundering money and now reach over that line. Here you have a couple that took out their own money, not drug money, not laundering. Yes...Many upset that they lost money...but how much did they make before it all fell apart? No one ask that question? A civil suit against Williams was awarded because he has no more money to fight...they pushed for a break in order...they took all his belongings...even underwear, shoes and clothes? who does that? What allows that? Maybe if you had the picture of him purchasing a jacket at the Goodwill just to go to court the next day...his enemy may be satisfied? But not likely...bitterness is a master. For happy ending lovers, you will be happy to know they have a faith that has changed their world and a solid love that many of us can only dream about. They will spend their time in federal jail for taking their money from their account, but at the end of the day they have loyal friends, a true love and a hope of a new life in time...and none of that can be bought or taken That is the real story.

  5. Could be his email did something especially heinous, really over the top like questioning Ind S.Ct. officials or accusing JLAP of being the political correctness police.

ADVERTISEMENT