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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Oh yes, lifetime tenure. The Founders gave that to the federal judges .... at that time no federal district courts existed .... so we are talking the Supreme Court justices only in context ....so that they could rule against traditional marriage and for the other pet projects of the sixties generation. Right. Hmmmm, but I must admit, there is something from that time frame that seems to recommend itself in this context ..... on yes, from a document the Founders penned in 1776: " He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."

  2. Payday loans take advantage of people in many ways. It's great to hear that the courts are using some of their sins to pay money back to the community. Hopefully this will help change the culture of many loan companies, and make lending a much safer endeavor for those in need. http://lawsuitlendingnow.com/lawsuit-loans-post-settlement.html

  3. A traditional parade of attorneys? Really Evansville? Y'all need to get out more. When is the traditional parade of notaries? Nurses? Sanitation workers? Pole dancers? I gotta wonder, do throngs of admiring citizens gather to laud these marching servants of the constitution? "Show us your billing records!!!" Hoping some video gets posted. Ours is not a narcissistic profession by any chance, is it? Nah .....

  4. My previous comment not an aside at court. I agree with smith. Good call. Just thought posting here a bit on the if it bleeds it leads side. Most attorneys need to think of last lines of story above.

  5. Hello everyone I'm Gina and I'm here for the exact same thing you are. I have the wonderful joy of waking up every morning to my heart being pulled out and sheer terror of what DCS is going to Throw at me and my family today.Let me start from the !bebeginning.My daughter lost all rights to her 3beautiful children due to Severe mental issues she no longer lives in our state and has cut all ties.DCS led her to belive that once she done signed over her right the babies would be with their family. We have faught screamed begged and anything else we could possibly due I hired a lawyer five grand down the drain.You know all I want is my babies home.I've done everything they have even asked me to do.Now their saying I can't see my grandchildren cause I'M on a prescription for paipain.I have a very rare blood disease it causes cellulitis a form of blood poisoning to stay dormant in my tissues and nervous system it also causes a ,blood clotting disorder.even with the two blood thinners I'm on I still Continue to develop them them also.DCS knows about my illness and still they refuse to let me see my grandchildren. I Love and miss them so much Please can anyone help Us my grandchildren and I they should be worrying about what toy there going to play with but instead there worrying about if there ever coming home again.THANK YOU DCS FOR ALL YOU'VE DONE. ( And if anyone at all has any ideals or knows who can help. Please contact (765)960~5096.only serious callers

ADVERTISEMENT