ILNews

Opinions July 15, 2013

July 15, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Tuan Chu v. State of Indiana
49A04-1210-CR-495
Criminal. Affirms convictions for three counts of Class D felony evasion of income tax, three counts of Class D felony theft, and one county of Class D felony failure to remit or collect sales tax. Chu appealed on the grounds that the nonpayment penalty of $280,326.62 and his criminal convictions violated double jeopardy principles. The COA stated it was not convinced that the nonpayment penalties were punishments for double jeopardy purposes and it disagreed with Chu’s assertion that the imposition of the nonpayment penalties was conditioned on the commission of a crime.

Darnell Chivers v. State of Indiana (NFP)
24A01-1205-PC-206
Post conviction. Reaffirmed the denial of post-conviction relief. In a rehearing clarifying its earlier opinion, the COA reaffirmed in all respects. Found Chivers was not denied effective assistance from counsel and his guilty plea was voluntary.

Jeffrey E. Howell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
47A05-1211-CR-590
Criminal. Affirms denial of Howell’s motion for the return of a laptop computer, data storage devices and other laptop accessories seized by law enforcement.

Gary McCoy v. Sandra Kay Roberts (NFP)
48A04-1211-DR-590
Domestic relation. Affirms denial of McCoy’s motion pursuant to Trial Rule 60(B)(8). Concluded McCoy did not show prima facie error with regard to the denial.

Andre Hairston v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A05-1211-CR-601
Criminal. Affirms Hairston’s two convictions for dealing in cocaine as Class B felonies.

Andrew Albert Graovac v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1208-CR-652
Criminal. Affirms conviction for resisting law enforcement as a Class A misdemeanor. http://media.ibj.com/Lawyer/websites/opinions/index.php?pdf=2013/july/07151302.lmb.pdf

Mack A. Sims v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1210-PC-431
Post Conviction. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief. Found the state’s nondisclosure that the victim had undergone hypnosis to sharpen his recollection of the shooting did not materially affect the outcome of Sims’ trial.

Marc A. Anderson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
03A01-1302-CR-75
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation. Ruled the lower court did not abuse its discretion in determining Anderson’s sanction for violating the terms of his probation.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court issued no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana decisions by IL deadline.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's an appreciable step taken by the government to curb the child abuse that are happening in the schools. Employees in the schools those are selected without background check can not be trusted. A thorough background check on the teachers or any other other new employees must be performed to choose the best and quality people. Those who are already employed in the past should also be checked for best precaution. The future of kids can be saved through this simple process. However, the checking process should be conducted by the help of a trusted background checking agency(https://www.affordablebackgroundchecks.com/).

  2. Almost everything connects to internet these days. From your computers and Smartphones to wearable gadgets and smart refrigerators in your home, everything is linked to the Internet. Although this convenience empowers usto access our personal devices from anywhere in the world such as an IP camera, it also deprives control of our online privacy. Cyber criminals, hackers, spies and everyone else has realized that we don’t have complete control on who can access our personal data. We have to take steps to to protect it like keeping Senseless password. Dont leave privacy unprotected. Check out this article for more ways: https://www.purevpn.com/blog/data-privacy-in-the-age-of-internet-of-things/

  3. You need to look into Celadon not paying sign on bonuses. We call get the run

  4. My parents took advantage of the fact that I was homeless in 2012 and went to court and got Legal Guardianship I my 2 daughters. I am finally back on my feet and want them back, but now they want to fight me on it. I want to raise my children and have them almost all the time on the weekends. Mynparents are both almost 70 years old and they play favorites which bothers me a lot. Do I have a leg to stand on if I go to court to terminate lehal guardianship? My kids want to live with me and I want to raise them, this was supposed to be temporary, and now it is turning into a fight. Ridiculous

  5. Here's my two cents. While in Texas in 2007 I was not registered because I only had to do it for ten years. So imagine my surprise as I find myself forced to register in Texas because indiana can't get their head out of their butt long enough to realize they passed an ex post facto law in 2006. So because Indiana had me listed as a failure to register Texas said I had to do it there. Now if Indiana had done right by me all along I wouldn't need the aclu to defend my rights. But such is life.

ADVERTISEMENT