ILNews

Opinions Jan. 22, 2014

January 22, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Antoine Duff v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1306-CR-503
Criminal. Affirms 16-year sentence, with 10 years executed and six years suspended, for Class B felony battery.

Anthony Barnett v. State of Indiana (NFP)
22A01-1302-PC-84
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Zachary Buza v. State of Indiana (NFP)
61A05-1304-CR-149
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony attempted murder, Class B felony attempted aggravated battery, two counts of Class C felony criminal recklessness and Class A misdemeanor battery resulting in bodily injury.

Michael E. Mattingly v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development, and Meijer Stores Limited Partnership (NFP)
93A02-1304-EX-383
Agency action. Affirms denial of unemployment benefits.

Bruce Jones v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1304-CR-363
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of B.B. and B.B. (Minor Children), A.S. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
49A02-1305-JT-431
Juvenile. Affirms denial of mother’s motion for relief from judgment following termination of parental rights.

Michael T. Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1304-CR-172
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony child molesting.

Challie A. Gray v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1306-CR-534  
Criminal. Affirms murder conviction.

Antonio D. Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A04-1305-CR-241
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Kevin Joseph Cherrone v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1305-CR-187
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor domestic battery.

Tabitha Edwards v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1305-CR-444
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated endangering a person and Class D felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated with a prior within five years.

Justin Kyle Loy v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A04-1303-CR-148
Criminal. Affirms order revoking probation.

J.F. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1305-JV-247
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication as a delinquent child for committing what would be Class D felony theft if committed by an adult.

Reginald Binion v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A05-1304-CR-177
Criminal. Affirms 15-year sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony attempted armed robbery.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions by 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. YES I WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION WITH MY YOUNGEST SON PEOPLE NEED TO LEAVE US ALONE WITH DCS IF WE ARE NOT HURTING OR NEGLECT OUR CHILDREN WHY ARE THEY EVEN CALLED OUT AND THE PEOPLE MAKING FALSE REPORTS NEED TO GO TO JAIL AND HAVE A CLASS D FELONY ON THERE RECORD TO SEE HOW IT FEELS. I WENT THREW ALOT WHEN HE WAS TAKEN WHAT ELSE DOES THESE SCHOOL WANT ME TO SERVE 25 YEARS TO LIFE ON LIES THERE TELLING OR EVEN LE SAME THING LIED TO THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR JUST SO I WOULD GET ARRESTED AND GET TIME HE THOUGHT AND IT TURNED OUT I DID WHAT I HAD TO DO NOT PROUD OF WHAT HAPPEN AND SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SEEKING MEDICAL ATTENTION FOR MY CHILD I AM DISABLED AND SICK OF GETTING TREATED BADLY HOW WOULD THEY LIKE IT IF I CALLED APS ON THEM FOR A CHANGE THEN THEY CAN COME AND ARREST THEM RIGHT OUT OF THE SCHOOL. NOW WE ARE HOMELESS AND THE CHILDREN ARE STAYING WITH A RELATIVE AND GUARDIAN AND THE SCHOOL WON'T LET THEM GO TO SCHOOL THERE BUT WANT THEM TO GO TO SCHOOL WHERE BULLYING IS ALLOWED REAL SMART THINKING ON A SCHOOL STAFF.

  2. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  3. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  4. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  5. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

ADVERTISEMENT