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

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