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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT