ILNews

Opinions Jan. 24, 2013

January 24, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Danny Boling v. State of Indiana
20A04-1205-CR-237
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony attempted child molesting based on the evidence presented at trial and 45-year sentence. Finds the trial court erred in determining Boling is a credit restricted felon because a person convicted of attempted child molesting isn’t a credit restricted felon under I.C. 35-31.5-2-72(1). Remands with instructions to correct Boling’s record to remove that designation.

William Pereira and Joseph McConnell v. Monica Pereira, John LeFebre and Karen LeFebre
04A05-1205-PL-241
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment order which denied William Pereira and Joseph McConnell’s complaint to quiet title in real estate acreage bequeathed by Joseph Sleeper and allowed inheritance of a share of the acreage by John and Karen LeFebre. The trial court properly found that Julia McConnell Tarr had a vested interest not contingent upon outliving the last surviving life tenant.  

Diano L. Gordon v. State of Indiana
49A05-1205-CR-242
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felonies attempted residential entry and escape. The show-up identification was not unduly suggestive and Gordon failed to object to the witness’s in-court identification of him. Rejects Gordon’s argument that his escape conviction should be reversed by application of the rule of lenity.

Terry Pounds v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A02-1206-PC-456
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petitions for post-conviction relief.

P.P. v. J.C. (NFP)
36A01-1203-DR-113
Domestic relation. Affirms denial of father’s petition to modify custody and child support.

E. Paul Haste v. State of Indiana (NFP)
03A05-1207-CR-378
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine, but reverses $90,000 restitution order and remands for the trial court to reduce it to $30,722. Judge Crone concurs in part and dissents in part.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions at IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions by IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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.

  4. I totally agree with John Smith.

  5. An idea that would harm the public good which is protected by licensing. Might as well abolish doctor and health care professions licensing too. Ridiculous. Unrealistic. Would open the floodgates of mischief and abuse. Even veteranarians are licensed. How has deregulation served the public good in banking, for example? Enough ideology already!

ADVERTISEMENT