Opinions Jan. 17, 2012

January 17, 2012
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Lebamoff Enterprises v. Alex Hurley, in his official capacity as chairman of the Indiana Alcohol and Tobacco Commission
Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division
U.S. Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson
Civil. Affirms District judge’s grant of summary judgment for the state defendants, ruling against a Fort Wayne area wine retailer’s constitutional challenge to a state law that prevents retailers from shipping wine to consumers via a motor carrier. The appellate panel found that the state statute is not preempted by federal law. Judge David Hamilton issued a separate concurring opinion.

The Indiana Supreme Court had issued no opinions by IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of D.C. and J.C.; J.D.C. (Mother) v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
Termination of Parental Rights. Affirms trial court’s termination of a mother’s parental rights, finding the court didn’t abuse its discretion in denying a continuance and that sufficient evidence existed to support the termination.

Rebecca Herb v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms aggregate two-year sentence that had six months suspended to probation. Finds that the sentence imposed following a guilty plea was not inappropriate in light of the nature of the fraud and stolen property offenses and the defendant’s character.

Adrian Deshon Porch v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms woman’s conviction for dealing in cocaine, dealing a narcotic drug and possessing paraphernalia, finding the court didn’t abuse its discretion in admitting certain evidence and that the appeal is barred under the law of the case doctrine.

Tyrone Tapp v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms defendant’s conviction as a habitual offender, finding the trial court didn’t commit reversible error in denying a motion to dismiss the habitual offender allegation.
Rising Property Management, LLP v. Department of Metropolitan Development Board of Zoning Appeals and Glendale Partners, Inc. (NFP)
Miscellaneous. Affirms trial court’s decision upholding a ruling by the Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals to approve a petition for variance filed by Glendale Partners. Finds that Rising Property Management has not established that the quantum of legitimate evidence was so proportionately meager as to lead to the conclusion that the BZA’s findings were not rational.

Aliesha Youna v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms defendant’s convictions for criminal recklessness and criminal mischief following a jury trial, finding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in not declaring a mistrial after allegedly improper remarks from the prosecutor during closing arguments.

Brandi M. Holder v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions for paraphernalia and marijuana possession, finding the trial court didn’t abuse its discretion in admitting seized evidence, admitting the test results of an item found in the vehicle, and instructing the jury on constructive possession.

Jerome Maxwell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms defendant’s convictions on felony child molesting and aggregate 40-year sentence of incarceration, finding the trial court didn’t abuse its discretion or commit fundamental error, that the prosecutor didn’t commit misconduct, that the convictions weren’t double jeopardy violations and the sentence is appropriate.

Indiana Tax Court had issued no opinions as of IL deadline.

A transfer disposition list shows the justices denied transfer on 10 cases during a private conference last week.



Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.