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

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. 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!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT