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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I'm not sure what's more depressing: the fact that people would pay $35,000 per year to attend an unaccredited law school, or the fact that the same people "are hanging in there and willing to follow the dean’s lead in going forward" after the same school fails to gain accreditation, rendering their $70,000 and counting education worthless. Maybe it's a good thing these people can't sit for the bar.

  2. Such is not uncommon on law school startups. Students and faculty should tap Bruce Green, city attorney of Lufkin, Texas. He led a group of studnets and faculty and sued the ABA as a law student. He knows the ropes, has advised other law school startups. Very astute and principled attorney of unpopular clients, at least in his past, before Lufkin tapped him to run their show.

  3. Not that having the appellate records on Odyssey won't be welcome or useful, but I would rather they first bring in the stray counties that aren't yet connected on the trial court level.

  4. Aristotle said 350 bc: "The most hated sort, and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest. And this term interest, which means the birth of money from money, is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore of an modes of getting wealth this is the most unnatural.

  5. Oh yes, lifetime tenure. The Founders gave that to the federal judges .... at that time no federal district courts existed .... so we are talking the Supreme Court justices only in context ....so that they could rule against traditional marriage and for the other pet projects of the sixties generation. Right. Hmmmm, but I must admit, there is something from that time frame that seems to recommend itself in this context ..... on yes, from a document the Founders penned in 1776: " He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."

ADVERTISEMENT