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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT