ILNews

Opinions Jan. 20, 2011

January 20, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Nathaniel Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1005-CR-466
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony dealing in a narcotic drug and Class A felony dealing in a narcotic drug.

Daniel Buchanan v. State of Indiana (NFP)
07A04-1003-CR-181
Criminal. Affirms convictions of three counts of Class B felony armed robbery, and one count each of Class B felony criminal confinement and Class B felony burglary.

Deborah Walton, et al. v. Claybridge Homeowners Association, Inc. (NFP)
29A05-1006-MF-399
Mortgage foreclosure. Affirms summary judgment order granting foreclosure of a judgment lien on Walton’s residence in favor of Claybridge Homeowners Association.

Christopher M. Lee v. State of Indiana (NFP)
24A01-1006-CR-282
Criminal. Affirms aggregate sentence of 20-and-a-half years with 16 years executed and four-and-a-half years suspended to probation.

Anthony Bedolla v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1003-CR-368
Criminal. Affirms murder conviction.

Austin Zell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A05-1006-CR-371
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and order Zell serve three years in the Department of Correction.

Gregory Fording v. State of Indiana (NFP)
09A02-1006-CR-604
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine.

Brian Biddle v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A01-1005-CR-262
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement and the revocation of probation.

Michael Stiles v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1005-CR-590
Criminal. Reverses sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated and to being a habitual offender. Remands with instructions to correct the sentencing order.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT