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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT