ILNews

Opinions Jan. 10, 2011

January 10, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Francisco Onan Delao v. State of Indiana
20A05-1003-CR-182
Criminal. Affirms four convictions of Class A felony dealing in cocaine. Delao waived any error in the admission of the audio recordings of certain cocaine transactions because he failed to present a sufficient record for appellate review. His sentence is appropriate in light of his character and offenses.

Brian S. Christie v. State of Indiana
33A01-1006-CR-306
Criminal. Affirms order revoking Christie’s community corrections placement and order he serve the entirety of his remaining sentence at the Department of Correction. The trial court’s judicial notice and its dispositional order were proper.

State of Ohio Conviction Against Mickey Shawn Gambler
02A04-1008-CR-509
Criminal. Reverses order that Gambler be removed from the Indiana sex offender registry. The trial court erred by not providing notice to the appropriate parties or holding a hearing. Remands for the trial court to dismiss the case without prejudice subject to further proceedings in the event Gambler files a sufficient petition.

Anthony Taylor v. State of Indiana
49A02-1008-PC-949
Post conviction. Reverses denial of petition for permission to file a belated appeal of the denial of Taylor’s petition for post-conviction relief. The post-conviction court abused its discretion in denying Taylor the relief he sought under Trial Rule 72(E). Remands for the post-conviction court to allow him to file a notice of appeal.

Kevin D. Ables v. Wray J. Ables (NFP)
18A05-1002-DR-144
Domestic relation. Affirms post-dissolution order.

Marshall Sims v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1005-CR-555
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

George Burnett v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A01-1002-CR-182
Criminal. Affirms order denying Burnett’s motion to correct erroneous sentence.

Mrtyrone Demon Metcalf v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1002-CR-69
Criminal. Affirms convictions of murder, felony murder in the perpetration of a robbery, and Class B felony robbery.

Justin Trevor Stetler v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A04-1004-CR-312
Criminal. Stetler pleaded guilty to Class B felony attempted child molesting. Reverses a restriction in the sentencing order and remands for it to be deleted and impose conditions as stated in the language. Affirms the trial court’s finding of aggravating and mitigating circumstances and his 14-year sentence of 10 years executed and four years suspended and served on probation.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

The Indiana Supreme Court granted four transfers and denied 24 for the week ending Jan. 7.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Actually, and most strikingly, the ruling failed to address the central issue to the whole case: Namely, Black Knight/LPS, who was NEVER a party to the State court litigation, and who is under a 2013 consent judgment in Indiana (where it has stipulated to the forgery of loan documents, the ones specifically at issue in my case)never disclosed itself in State court or remediated the forged loan documents as was REQUIRED of them by the CJ. In essence, what the court is willfully ignoring, is that it is setting a precedent that the supplier of a defective product, one whom is under a consent judgment stipulating to such, and under obligation to remediate said defective product, can: 1.) Ignore the CJ 2.) Allow counsel to commit fraud on the state court 3.) Then try to hide behind Rooker Feldman doctrine as a bar to being held culpable in federal court. The problem here is the court is in direct conflict with its own ruling(s) in Johnson v. Pushpin Holdings & Iqbal- 780 F.3d 728, at 730 “What Johnson adds - what the defendants in this suit have failed to appreciate—is that federal courts retain jurisdiction to award damages for fraud that imposes extrajudicial injury. The Supreme Court drew that very line in Exxon Mobil ... Iqbal alleges that the defendants conducted a racketeering enterprise that predates the state court’s judgments ...but Exxon Mobil shows that the Rooker Feldman doctrine asks what injury the plaintiff asks the federal court to redress, not whether the injury is “intertwined” with something else …Because Iqbal seeks damages for activity that (he alleges) predates the state litigation and caused injury independently of it, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not block this suit. It must be reinstated.” So, as I already noted to others, I now have the chance to bring my case to SCOTUS; the ruling by Wood & Posner is flawed on numerous levels,BUT most troubling is the fact that the authors KNOW it's a flawed ruling and choose to ignore the flaws for one simple reason: The courts have decided to agree with former AG Eric Holder that national banks "Are too big to fail" and must win at any cost-even that of due process, case precedent, & the truth....Let's see if SCOTUS wants a bite at the apple.

  2. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  3. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  4. Please I need help with my class action lawsuits, im currently in pro-se and im having hard time findiNG A LAWYER TO ASSIST ME

  5. Access to the court (judiciary branch of government) is the REAL problem, NOT necessarily lack of access to an attorney. Unfortunately, I've lived in a legal and financial hell for the past six years due to a divorce (where I was, supposedly, represented by an attorney) in which I was defrauded of settlement and the other party (and helpers) enriched through the fraud. When I attempted to introduce evidence and testify (pro se) in a foreclosure/eviction, I was silenced (apparently on procedural grounds, as research I've done since indicates). I was thrown out of a residence which was to be sold, by a judge who refused to allow me to speak in (the supposedly "informal") small claims court where the eviction proceeding (by ex-brother-in-law) was held. Six years and I can't even get back on solid or stable ground ... having bank account seized twice, unlawfully ... and now, for the past year, being dragged into court - again, contrary to law and appellate decisions - by former attorney, who is trying to force payment from exempt funds. Friday will mark fifth appearance. Hopefully, I'll be allowed to speak. The situation I find myself in shouldn't even be possible, much less dragging out with no end in sight, for years. I've done nothing wrong, but am watching a lot of wrong being accomplished under court jurisdiction; only because I was married to someone who wanted and was granted a divorce (but was not willing to assume the responsibilities that come with granting the divorce). In fact, the recalcitrant party was enriched by well over $100k, although it was necessarily split with other actors. Pro bono help? It's a nice dream ... but that's all it is, for too many. Meanwhile, injustice marches on.

ADVERTISEMENT