ILNews

Opinions Jan. 24, 2012

January 24, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals had posted no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court
Antoine Hill v. State of Indiana
45S03-1105-PC-283
Post conviction. Holds that the appropriate standard for judging the performance of Post-Conviction Rule 2 counsel is the standard set forth in Baum v. State. Further holds that Post-Conviction Rule 2 counsel in this case did not violate Baum because she represented the defendant in a procedurally fair setting which resulted in a judgment of the court. Justice Sullivan concurs with separate opinion; Justice Rucker dissents.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Jessica Bowling v. State of Indiana
35A04-1107-CR-407
Criminal. Affirms denial of Bowling’s petition for permission to file a belated notice of appeal pursuant to Indiana Post-Conviction Rule 2. The agreement Bowling signed to waive her right to appeal the sentence is valid.

Violet M. Lockett v. Peggy Hoskins a/k/a Peggy J. Smith
49A02-1106-CT-552
Civil tort. Reverses award of attorney fees to Hoskins. Lockett’s claim for negligence was not unreasonable and she made a good faith and rational argument on the merits of the action. Declines Hoskins’ request for appellate attorney fees.

James R. Johnson v. State of Indiana
44A04-1105-PC-264
Post conviction. Reverses denial of petition for post-conviction relief. The trial court erred in accepting Johnson’s guilty plea to Class A felony child molesting because the record shows he pleaded guilty to it at the same time he maintained his innocence. Remands for further proceedings.

Jeremiah Brown v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A04-1105-PC-309
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Cordell G. Gage v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1103-CR-110
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony burglary and determination that Gage is a habitual offender.

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: J.W. & C.W. and M.W. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
71A05-1105-JT-278
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Terry York v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1105-CR-247
Criminal. Reverses York’s Class A felony attempted robbery conviction and remands with instructions to enter judgment of conviction of Class B felony attempted robbery and resentence York accordingly.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT