ILNews

Opinions Jan. 25, 2013

January 25, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
The following opinion was released after IL deadline Thursday.

Carlin Iltzsch v. State of Indiana
49S02-1301-CR-57
Criminal. Reverses Court of Appeals order vacating a judgment of restitution against a criminal defendant, holding that such orders may be reviewed by the court and remanded for rehearing when evidence is insufficient to support the order.

Indiana Court of Appeals
David Delagrange v. State of Indiana
49A04-1203-CR-144
Criminal. Reversed conviction of four counts of Class C felony attempted child exploitation and remanded for further proceedings. Ruled Delagrange’s act of secretly photographing minor girls’ underwear did not meet the Indiana statute’s definition of “child exploitation” because the girls did not intentionally expose themselves for the purpose of satisfying or arousing sexual desires of another.

Robertson Fowler v. State of Indiana
49A05-1202-PC-68
Criminal. Affirms on rehearing earlier denial of post-conviction relief for Robertson Fowler  sentenced to a maximum of 35 years in prison for his conviction of possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon with an enhancement as a habitual offender. Because Fowler received the benefit of charges against him being dropped when he pleaded guilty, his conviction was not in conflict with the Indiana Supreme Court’s subsequent ruling in Mills v. State, 868 N.E.2d 446, 450 (Ind. 2007) or a differing Court of Appeals ruling, Dugan v. State, 976 N.E.2d 1248, 1249.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: D.T., (Minor Child), and T.S. (Father) v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services
49A02-1205-JT-420

Juvenile. Affirms termination of a juvenile father’s parental rights, holding that his due process rights were not violated when the trial court did not appoint a guardian ad litem for him.

David McCombs v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1111-PC-658
Post conviction. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief involving 62-year sentence on charges of murder, theft and carrying handgun without a license.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of D.C., Minor Child; A.R., Mother, and S.C., Father v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services, Lake County CASA (NFP)
45A03-1204-JT-172
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Dale D. Engle v. State of Indiana (NFP)
58A04-1205-CR-244
Criminal. Affirms 12-year sentence for conviction of Class B felony dealing in a controlled substance.

Charles Kingery v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1204-CR-317
Affirms 55-year murder sentence following resentencing on a reduced felony robbery charge.

Ricky J. Thurston v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1204-CR-289
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony rape and adjudication as a habitual offender.

D.J. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1206-JV-490
Criminal. Affirms adjudication as a delinquent for what would be Class D felony theft and Class A misdemeanor dangerous possession of a firearm if committed by an adult.

Paul Hoffert, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
84A05-1205-CR-273
Criminal. Affirms revocation of placement in work release.

Kip Hurt v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1206-CR-286
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor battery.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court issued no opinions by IL deadline Friday. U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana opinions by IL deadline Friday.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT