ILNews

Opinions July 18, 2011

July 18, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
David Delagrange v. State of Indiana
49A02-1010-CR-1086
Criminal. Affirms partial denial of motion to dismiss. The state has alleged that Delagrange knowingly or intentionally attempted to create an image of sexual conduct, which is a sufficient statement of Delagrange’s mental state to survive a motion to dismiss. Remands for further proceedings. Judge Baker dissents.

Nathan D. Hawkins v. State of Indiana

79A02-1101-CR-100
Criminal. Affirms denial of Hawkins' sentence modification. The 365-day period during which the trial court has sole discretion to grant a modification began when Hawkins was originally sentenced, not when he was re-sentenced after appeal. Because his motion was filed outside of the one-year period and the prosecutor didn’t consent to a modification, the modification is properly denied. Chief Judge Robb dissents with separate opinion.

Donald Troutner v. State of Indiana
91A04-1012-CR-796
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class A misdemeanor battery and concurrent sentence because the state presented the same evidence to also support Troutner’s conviction of Class B felony robbery. The trial court erred when it limited the testimony of Troutner’s niece, but it was a harmless error, so the robbery conviction is affirmed.

BP Products North America, et al. v. Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor, et al.

93A02-0905-EX-490
Agency action. On rehearing, reverses the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission’s decision that BP Products was not a public utility with respect to the furnishing by it of natural gas it purchased from the Northern Indiana Public Service Co. to Marsulex. The COA declared this issue to be moot as a result of the resolution of other issues on appeal, which was an incorrect conclusion. Remands for further proceedings and affirms original decision in all other matters.  

Donald Glorioso v. Carla Glorioso (NFP)
64A03-1012-DR-620
Domestic relation. Affirms finding Donald Glorioso in contempt of court in a dissolution matter.

Gregory D. Harris v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1012-CR-787
Criminal. Affirms revocation of placement on home detention.

Vincent B. Hunter, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A04-1012-CR-788
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony burglary and Class D felony animal cruelty.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT