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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT