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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT