Opinions Jan. 24, 2012

January 24, 2012
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
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
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
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
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)
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Cordell G. Gage v. State of Indiana (NFP)
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)
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Terry York v. State of Indiana (NFP)
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.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?