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. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....

ADVERTISEMENT