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. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  2. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  3. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  4. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  5. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

ADVERTISEMENT