ILNews

Opinions July 9, 2010

July 9, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following opinion was issued after Thursday’s IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court
Steven W. Everling v. State of Indiana
48S05-0911-CR-506
Criminal. Reverses and remands for a new trial following jury’s finding of Everling to be guilty of three counts of child molesting and two counts of sexual misconduct with a minor. While Everling raised several issues for a reversal, the Supreme Court addressed only whether the judge’s conduct during the trial deprived Everling of a fair trial. Concludes the court’s overall conduct evidenced partiality.

Today’s Opinions
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Freddie L. Byers Jr. v. James Basinger, Superintendent of the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility

09-1833
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division. Judge Allen Sharp
Civil. Affirms District Court's denial of Byers' habeas petition. After a jury found Byers guilty of murder, attempted murder and robbery, the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed on direct appeal. The Indiana Court of Appeals denied his petition for post-conviction relief, and the Indiana Supreme Court denied transfer. The District Court later denied Byers’ habeas petition, in which Byers argued that his trial counsel performed deficiently. The 7th Circuit granted Byers a certificate of appealability on the question whether he had been denied effective assistance of counsel. The 7th Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial because, even if Byers successfully exhausted his claim, it lacks merit.

Today's opinions
The Indiana Supreme Court posted no opinions before IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Daniel C. Reinhart v. State of Indiana
57A03-1002-CR-84
Criminal. Reverses Reinhart’s convictions of Class D felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated and Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana. The sole issue presented for review was whether trial court abused its discretion when it admitted evidence obtained following a traffic stop of Reinhart’s vehicle. Reinhart asserted police violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.
 
Allen A. Halferty v. State of Indiana
20A03-0910-CR-475
Criminal. Affirms Halferty’s conviction of maintaining a common nuisance by dealing methamphetamine. Reverses his conviction of Class A felony dealing in methamphetamine and remands with instructions to enter a conviction for Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine due to evidence regarding the amount of the drug. Also instructs trial court to revise Halferty’s sentence to reflect the change from Class A felony to Class B felony.
 
Charles Taylor v. State of Indiana
71A04-1001-PC-6
Post-conviction. Affirms post-conviction court’s denial of Taylor’s petition for post-conviction relief. After he initiated a direct appeal of his three convictions of Class B felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, the Court of Appeals had granted Taylor a Davis/Hatton petition, which involves a termination or suspension of a direct appeal already initiated, upon appellate counsel’s motion for remand or stay, to allow a post-conviction relief petition to be pursued in the trial court. Court of Appeals concludes Taylor’s trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance by failing to object to the admission of the weapons and that his convictions do not violate Indiana’s prohibition against double jeopardy.
 
Ben Gill v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-0912-CR-734
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentences for intimidation and battery following a guilty plea without a written plea agreement.

Mark A. Shepard v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-0912-CR-1244
Criminal. Affirms conviction of battery.
 
Robert Townsend v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-0911-CR-1120
Criminal. Affirms classification as a Sexually Violent Predator.

Donald J. Zellers v. Sharon Zellers (NFP)
43A03-0909-CV-433
Civil. Affirms trial court’s distribution of marital property following divorce.
 
Kirby D. Oliver v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1002-CR-53
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s denial of Oliver’s motion requesting placement in community corrections following a guilty plea to murder.

The Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions before IL deadline.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  2. If the end result is to simply record the spoke word, then perhaps some day digital recording may eventually be the status quo. However, it is a shallow view to believe the professional court reporter's function is to simply report the spoken word and nothing else. There are many aspects to being a professional court reporter, and many aspects involved in producing a professional and accurate transcript. A properly trained professional steno court reporter has achieved a skill set in a field where the average dropout rate in court reporting schools across the nation is 80% due to the difficulty of mastering the necessary skills. To name just a few "extras" that a court reporter with proper training brings into a courtroom or a deposition suite; an understanding of legal procedure, technology specific to the legal profession, and an understanding of what is being said by the attorneys and litigants (which makes a huge difference in the quality of the transcript). As to contracting, or anti-contracting the argument is simple. The court reporter as governed by our ethical standards is to be the independent, unbiased individual in a deposition or courtroom setting. When one has entered into a contract with any party, insurance carrier, etc., then that reporter is no longer unbiased. I have been a court reporter for over 30 years and I echo Mr. Richardson's remarks that I too am here to serve.

  3. A competitive bid process is ethical and appropriate especially when dealing with government agencies and large corporations, but an ethical line is crossed when court reporters in Pittsburgh start charging exorbitant fees on opposing counsel. This fee shifting isn't just financially biased, it undermines the entire justice system, giving advantages to those that can afford litigation the most. It makes no sense.

  4. "a ttention to detail is an asset for all lawyers." Well played, Indiana Lawyer. Well played.

  5. I have a appeals hearing for the renewal of my LPN licenses and I need an attorney, the ones I have spoke to so far want the money up front and I cant afford that. I was wondering if you could help me find one that takes payments or even a pro bono one. I live in Indiana just north of Indianapolis.

ADVERTISEMENT