ILNews

Opinions July 23, 2010

July 23, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court posted no opinions before IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
David K. Murphy v. State of Indiana
18A02-1002-CR-213
Criminal. Reverses and remands trial court’s decision denying Murphy educational credit time. Murphy contended the trial court is the proper authority to determine whether to grant educational credit time for receiving his general educational development diploma prior to sentencing. The Court of Appeals agreed.
 
Norman A. Donovan v. State of Indiana (NFP)
55A01-0912-CR-617
Criminal. Remands with instructions to merge operating a vehicle while intoxicated conviction into his operating with a 0.08 alcohol concentration equivalent conviction, vacate the OWI conviction, and enter judgment on the ACE conviction. Affirms in all other respects.

Willie L. Jackson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
90A02-1001-CR-23
Criminal. Affirms order to pay $1,767 in restitution.
 
Jimmy Yarbrough v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-0912-CR-1217
Criminal. Affirms conviction of burglary as a Class B felony.
 
Kyla Phillips v. Hook-SuperX, Inc. (NFP)
36A01-1003-CT-142
Civil. Affirms trial court’s denial of Phillips’ motion for relief from judgment.
 
Frank Guajardo v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-0912-CR-1234
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence because Guajardo may not challenge his guilty plea on direct appeal. However, the trial court erred by imposing a public defender fee without finding Guajardo had the ability to pay; the fee is reversed and the case remanded for a determination of Guajardo’s ability to pay.

Shawn M. Swartout v. State of Indiana (NFP)
92A05-1002-CR-66
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony possession of methamphetamine, Class D felony possession of a narcotic drug, Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana, and Class A misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia.

Thomas Christman v. Matthew Christman (NFP)
85A02-0910-CV-1014
Civil. Affirms trial court’s judgment in Thomas Christman’s action to partition land filed against his son Matthew.

James E. Jennings v. State of Indiana (NFP)
87A01-1002-CR-34
Criminal. Affirms conviction of operating a vehicle while intoxicated as a Class C misdemeanor.

Anthony Franklin v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A02-0912-CR-1241
Criminal. Affirms murder conviction following a bench trial.

James Ingersoll v. State of Indiana (NFP)
75A03-0911-CR-540
Criminal. Affirms post-conviction court’s denial of request for education credit time.

Wesley Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
55A01-0909-PC-440
Post-conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.
 
Khalid M. Jackson-Bey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-0911-CR-646
Criminal. Affirms convictions of robbery, confinement, and battery.

Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions before IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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.

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT