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. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  2. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

  3. This law is troubling in two respects: First, why wasn't the law reviewed "with the intention of getting all the facts surrounding the legislation and its actual impact on the marketplace" BEFORE it was passed and signed? Seems a bit backwards to me (even acknowledging that this is the Indiana state legislature we're talking about. Second, what is it with the laws in this state that seem to create artificial monopolies in various industries? Besides this one, the other law that comes to mind is the legislation that governed the granting of licenses to firms that wanted to set up craft distilleries. The licensing was limited to only those entities that were already in the craft beer brewing business. Republicans in this state talk a big game when it comes to being "business friendly". They're friendly alright . . . to certain businesses.

  4. Gretchen, Asia, Roberto, Tonia, Shannon, Cheri, Nicholas, Sondra, Carey, Laura ... my heart breaks for you, reaching out in a forum in which you are ignored by a professional suffering through both compassion fatigue and the love of filthy lucre. Most if not all of you seek a warm blooded Hoosier attorney unafraid to take on the government and plead that government officials have acted unconstitutionally to try to save a family and/or rescue children in need and/or press individual rights against the Leviathan state. I know an attorney from Kansas who has taken such cases across the country, arguing before half of the federal courts of appeal and presenting cases to the US S.Ct. numerous times seeking cert. Unfortunately, due to his zeal for the constitutional rights of peasants and willingness to confront powerful government bureaucrats seemingly violating the same ... he was denied character and fitness certification to join the Indiana bar, even after he was cleared to sit for, and passed, both the bar exam and ethics exam. And was even admitted to the Indiana federal bar! NOW KNOW THIS .... you will face headwinds and difficulties in locating a zealously motivated Hoosier attorney to face off against powerful government agents who violate the constitution, for those who do so tend to end up as marginalized as Paul Odgen, who was driven from the profession. So beware, many are mere expensive lapdogs, the kind of breed who will gladly take a large retainer, but then fail to press against the status quo and powers that be when told to heel to. It is a common belief among some in Indiana that those attorneys who truly fight the power and rigorously confront corruption often end up, actually or metaphorically, in real life or at least as to their careers, as dead as the late, great Gary Welch. All of that said, I wish you the very best in finding a Hoosier attorney with a fighting spirit to press your rights as far as you can, for you do have rights against government actors, no matter what said actors may tell you otherwise. Attorneys outside the elitist camp are often better fighters that those owing the powers that be for their salaries, corner offices and end of year bonuses. So do not be afraid to retain a green horn or unconnected lawyer, many of them are fine men and woman who are yet untainted by the "unique" Hoosier system.

  5. I am not the John below. He is a journalist and talk show host who knows me through my years working in Kansas government. I did no ask John to post the note below ...

ADVERTISEMENT