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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT