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. 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