ILNews

Opinions June 12, 2014

June 12, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Gabriel McQuay v. State of Indiana
49A02-1311-CR-954
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony criminal confinement and Class A misdemeanor battery. Under an objective analysis, the circumstances of the encounter as well as the statements and actions of R.S. and Officer Travis Williams indicate that the primary purpose of the interrogation was to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency. As such, R.S.’s identification of herself and McQuay were not testimonial statements. The Confrontation Clause did not bar their admission at McQuay’s trial.

Lesley Farley Pitcavage v. Joel Michael Pitcavage
29A02-1307-DR-597
Domestic relation. Affirms in part, reverses in part and remands with instructions. Concludes that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding custody of the child to Joel Pitcavage; in its valuation of the mortgage debt, engagement ring, and golf clubs, or in its division of debts and award of fees relating to home repairs, custody evaluations, tax return preparation, and car insurance premiums. The trial court abused its discretion in its valuation of Leslie Pitcavage’s 401(k) account.

Billy Young v. State of Indiana
49A02-1310-CR-868
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class B felony attempted aggravated battery. The charging information did not give Young sufficient notice of the crime of which he was convicted.

Bradley S. Stock v. State of Indiana (NFP)
24A05-1308-CR-403
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felony child molesting, Class C felony vicarious sexual gratification, Class D felony performing sexual conduct in the presence of a minor and Class D felony child solicitation.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of B.P.V. & B.L.V. (Minor Children) and H.P. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
71A04-1310-JT-546
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Shelton B. Stephens v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1311-CR-439
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and order Stephens serve the remainder of his suspended sentence.

Tony Lamar Thompson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A05-1311-CR-546
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and order Thompson serve the entirety of his previously suspended sentence.

Nicholas M. Weatherford v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1309-CR-766
Criminal. Affirms Class D felony theft conviction and adjudication as a habitual offender.

Darris Blake Galloway v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A05-1310-CR-503
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony dealing in cocaine.

Vance Gene Bridgemon v. State of Indiana (NFP)
46A04-1310-CR-552
Criminal. Affirms denial of Ind. Trial Rule 60(B) motion for relief from robbery convictions.

Franklin E. Logan v. State of Indiana (NFP)
24A05-1310-CR-495
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class C felony burglary.

Krasimir Pavlov v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1311-CR-443
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony battery and Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass.

Shawkan Darden v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1310-CR-892
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana.

Nita Joyce Trott v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1311-CR-496
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony resisting law enforcement and Class B misdemeanor reckless driving.

Kevin R. Simmons v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A02-1309-CR-830
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony battery resulting in serious bodily injury.

In the Matter of the Termination of Parent-Child Relationship of J.C.G. (Minor Child), and L.A.M. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
02A03-1312-JT-466
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Tracy L. Oaks v. State of Indiana (NFP)
85A02-1312-CR-1057
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony dealing in a Schedule I, II or III controlled substance.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: G.M. (Minor Child), and R.M. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
29A05-1310-JT-509
Juvenile. Affirms termination of mother’s parental rights.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions by IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT