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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT