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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT