ILNews

Opinions July 13, 2010

July 13, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Michael Akens v. State of Indiana
49A05-0912-CR-687
Criminal. Affirms sentence imposed following guilty plea to child molesting. The trial court’s statement that Akens could appeal his sentence wasn’t made until after the court had accepted the plea agreement and entered Akens’ sentence. The agreement included his express waiver of his right to appeal his sentence.

Deborah Edwards v. State of Indiana
49A02-0911-CR-1093
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class D felony criminal recklessness. Evidence of a defendant’s absence from a crime scene is not an “alibi” defense. It is a rebuttal of the prosecution’s contention the defendant was present and thus capable of committing the crime. Remands for a new trial.

Randy Allen Long v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-0909-CR-903
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony possession of marijuana and Class A misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia.

John C. Cole, Jr. v. Patrick V. Baker (NFP)
49A02-0910-CV-960
Civil. Reverses summary judgment for attorney Patrick Baker after he refused to return money Cole paid him as a retainer.

A.E. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1001-JV-17
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication for committing what would be Class B and Class C felony child molesting if committed by an adult.

Ronald Wright v. State of Indiana (NFP)
46A03-0912-CR-594
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to correct erroneous sentence.

Douglas K. Huffnagel v. Christopher F. Cline (NFP)
20A05-0911-CV-662
Civil. Affirms grant of Cline’s motion for a directed verdict in favor of Cline on Huffnagel’s claims for negligence and injuries following an automobile accident.

Timothy Charles Wakefield v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A04-0911-CR-647
Criminal. Remands case for a sentencing statement that clearly explains its finding of aggravating and mitigating circumstances and its reasons for imposing consecutive sentences following guilty plea to Class D felonies criminal recklessness, maintaining a common nuisance, dealing in marijuana, and possession of a controlled substance.

William D. Baxter v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-0908-PC-724
Post conviction. Reverses denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Otis A. Tate, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A04-1003-CR-138
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony forgery.

William Kerr v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-0911-CR-639
Criminal. Affirms conviction of operating a vehicle while intoxicated as a Class A misdemeanor.

D.C.B. Alleged to be C.H.I.N.S.; P.B. and Da.B. v. Marion County DCS and Child Advocates (NFP)
49A02-0912-JV-1204
Juvenile. Affirms finding D.C.B. is a child in need of services.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of K.I. and R.I.; K.K. and C.I. v. IDCS (NFP)
20A03-0912-JV-562
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Andy Zulu v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-0911-CR-1113
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentences for Class B felonies rape, and criminal deviate conduct.

Donald Johnston, et al. v. Carl W. Johnston, et al. (NFP)
43A03-0912-CV-568
Civil. Affirms the trial court’s judgment and order for distribution of sale proceeds.

James Gilman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A05-0908-PC-462
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief and remands with instructions to enter an amended sentencing order.

Kenneth McClung v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-0912-CR-1275
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony aggravated battery.

V.B. v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development and Daimler Chrysler Co. LLC (NFP)
93A02-0911-EX-1140
Civil. Affirms dismissal of V.B.’s appeal of a determination that she was not eligible for benefits.

Lewis Vasquez v. State of Indiana (NFP)
27A02-1002-CR-135
Criminal. Reverses sentence following guilty plea to Class B felonies criminal confinement and burglary while armed with a deadly weapon. Remands for re-sentencing.

John B. Felder v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-0902-CV-156
Civil. Affirms judgment in favor of the state and Department of Correction employees in Felder’s complaint regarding events that allegedly occurred while he was at Pendleton Correctional Facility.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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.

  4. I totally agree with John Smith.

  5. An idea that would harm the public good which is protected by licensing. Might as well abolish doctor and health care professions licensing too. Ridiculous. Unrealistic. Would open the floodgates of mischief and abuse. Even veteranarians are licensed. How has deregulation served the public good in banking, for example? Enough ideology already!

ADVERTISEMENT