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. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  2. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  3. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  4. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  5. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

ADVERTISEMENT