ILNews

Opinions Jan. 28, 2011

January 28, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Keith Eberle v. State of Indiana
58A01-1003-CR-105
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony intimidation, Class C felony stalking, and two counts of Class B misdemeanor harassment due to text messages and phone calls from Eberle to an employer-issued cell phone that belonged to an Ohio County jail matron. Eberle raised four issues: whether the state established that Ohio County was a proper venue for trial; whether the trial court properly refused Eberle’s proposed venue instructions; whether sufficient evidence supports Eberle’s convictions; and whether the trial court’s failure to vacate lesser-included offenses that were merged for purposes of sentencing violated Indiana’s prohibition against double jeopardy.

Christopher West v. State of Indiana
24A04-1005-CR-342
Criminal. Affirms convictions of using fraud or misrepresentation in the offer or sale of a security, a Class C felony; the offer or sale of an unregistered security, a Class C felony; and the offer or sale of a security by an unregistered broker-dealer, a Class C felony. West raised the following issues: whether the trial court erred in denying West’s motion to dismiss; whether the trial court erred in instructing the jury; and whether there is sufficient evidence to support West’s convictions.
    
Dennis J. Turner v. State of Indiana (NFP)
06A05-1006-CR-427
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for burglary as a Class B felony.

State of Indiana v. Jermain Blue (NFP)
02A03-1003-CR-139
Criminal. Denies rehearing of Nov. 3, 2010, opinion regarding suppression of state’s evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant that was invalid under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.

Travis R. Rush v. State of Indiana (NFP)
09A02-1006-CR-637
Criminal. Affirms conviction of battery, a Class C felony.

John Wilson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1006-CR-677
Criminal. Affirms conviction of three counts of reckless homicide as Class C felonies.

Luiz Alves v. Damon R. Leichty, et al. (NFP)
71A03-1005-PL-301
Civil. Affirms trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Leichty and other appellees-defendants. Also affirms trial court’s entry of judgment on counterclaim of counterclaim plaintiff Barnes & Thornburg in the amount of $93,992.40 plus costs.


Nikol Hutnik v. State of Indiana (NFP)
30A04-1005-CR-298
Criminal. Affirms conviction of dealing in a schedule II controlled substance, a Class B felony.

O.V. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1005-JV-574
Juvenile. Affirms juvenile court’s order modifying O.V.’s probation by removing him from his home and placing him in a rehabilitation and treatment center outside of his home county.

Pretiss Huff v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1008-PC-575
Post-conviction. Affirms denial of Huff’s petition for post-conviction relief.

Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It really doesn't matter what the law IS, if law enforcement refuses to take reports (or take them seriously), if courts refuse to allow unrepresented parties to speak (especially in Small Claims, which is supposedly "informal"). It doesn't matter what the law IS, if constituents are unable to make effective contact or receive any meaningful response from their representatives. Two of our pets were unnecessarily killed; court records reflect that I "abandoned" them. Not so; when I was denied one of them (and my possessions, which by court order I was supposed to be able to remove), I went directly to the court. And earlier, when I tried to have the DV PO extended (it expired while the subject was on probation for violating it), the court denied any extension. The result? Same problems, less than eight hours after expiration. Ironic that the county sheriff was charged (and later pleaded to) with intimidation, but none of his officers seemed interested or capable of taking such a report from a private citizen. When I learned from one officer what I needed to do, I forwarded audio and transcript of one occurrence and my call to law enforcement (before the statute of limitations expired) to the prosecutor's office. I didn't even receive an acknowledgement. Earlier, I'd gone in to the prosecutor's office and been told that the officer's (written) report didn't match what I said occurred. Since I had the audio, I can only say that I have very little faith in Indiana government or law enforcement.

  2. One can only wonder whether Mr. Kimmel was paid for his work by Mr. Burgh ... or whether that bill fell to the citizens of Indiana, many of whom cannot afford attorneys for important matters. It really doesn't take a judge(s) to know that "pavement" can be considered a deadly weapon. It only takes a brain and some education or thought. I'm glad to see the conviction was upheld although sorry to see that the asphalt could even be considered "an issue".

  3. In response to bryanjbrown: thank you for your comment. I am familiar with Paul Ogden (and applaud his assistance to Shirley Justice) and have read of Gary Welsh's (strange) death (and have visited his blog on many occasions). I am not familiar with you (yet). I lived in Kosciusko county, where the sheriff was just removed after pleading in what seems a very "sweetheart" deal. Unfortunately, something NEEDS to change since the attorneys won't (en masse) stand up for ethics (rather making a show to please the "rules" and apparently the judges). I read that many attorneys are underemployed. Seems wisdom would be to cull the herd and get rid of the rotting apples in practice and on the bench, for everyone's sake as well as justice. I'd like to file an attorney complaint, but I have little faith in anything (other than the most flagrant and obvious) resulting in action. My own belief is that if this was medicine, there'd be maimed and injured all over and the carnage caused by "the profession" would be difficult to hide. One can dream ... meanwhile, back to figuring out to file a pro se "motion to dismiss" as well as another court required paper that Indiana is so fond of providing NO resources for (unlike many other states, who don't automatically assume that citizens involved in the court process are scumbags) so that maybe I can get the family law attorney - whose work left me with no settlement, no possessions and resulted in the death of two pets (etc ad nauseum) - to stop abusing the proceedings supplemental and small claims rules and using it as a vehicle for harassment and apparently, amusement.

  4. Been on social security sense sept 2011 2massive strokes open heart surgery and serious ovarian cancer and a blood clot in my lung all in 14 months. Got a letter in may saying that i didn't qualify and it was in form like i just applied ,called social security she said it don't make sense and you are still geting a check in june and i did ,now i get a check from my part D asking for payment for july because there will be no money for my membership, call my prescription coverage part D and confirmed no check will be there.went to social security they didn't want to answer whats going on just said i should of never been on it .no one knows where this letter came from was California im in virginia and been here sense my strokes and vcu filed for my disability i was in the hospital when they did it .It's like it was a error . My ,mothers social security was being handled in that office in California my sister was dealing with it and it had my social security number because she died last year and this letter came out of the same office and it came at the same time i got the letter for my mother benefits for death and they had the same date of being typed just one was on the mail Saturday and one on Monday. . I think it's a mistake and it should been fixed instead there just getting rid of me .i never got a formal letter saying when i was being tsken off.

  5. Employers should not have racially discriminating mind set. It has huge impact on the society what the big players do or don't do in the industry. Background check is conducted just to verify whether information provided by the prospective employee is correct or not. It doesn't have any direct combination with the rejection of the employees. If there is rejection, there should be something effective and full-proof things on the table that may keep the company or the people associated with it in jeopardy.

ADVERTISEMENT