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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT