ILNews

Opinions Feb. 8, 2013

February 8, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Billy Russell v. State of Indiana
49A04-1203-CR-148
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence on charges of murder and Class B felony possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon. The panel found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to completely bifurcate the trial of the SVF charge from the murder charge or in refusing to tender Russell’s self-defense jury instruction. The court also determined the 85-year sentence was not inappropriate.

Hiawathia Hunt v. State of Indiana

49A04-1207-CR-371
Criminal. Affirms 545-day sentence, 270 executed, on a conviction of Class D felony theft following a bench trial, holding that a sentence in which the judge offered possible leniency in time served in exchange for restitution to the victim was not error because the sentence was not conditioned upon restitution but rather offered possible modification if restitution was paid.

Estate of Ruby L. Rowland: James A. Rowland, Jr. v. Michael B. Rowland (NFP)

48A02-1203-ES-223
Estate, supervised. Affirms the trial court’s denial of the Estate’s petition to recover assets. Ruled the trial court properly found that the presumption of undue influence does not apply and properly found the Estate failed to prove that the statutory presumption for survivorship rights was overcome.

Louis Townsend v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A04-1207-PC-389
Post conviction. Affirms trial court’s denial of Townsend’s petition for relief. Found the post-conviction court did not err when it concluded that Townsend did not receive ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel and when it concluded Townsend was not entitled to post-conviction relief on the basis of newly-discovered evidence.

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana decisions prior to IL deadline. The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court issued no opinions prior to 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. 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