The following Indiana Supreme Court opinion was posted after IL deadline Tuesday:
Michael
W. Baker v. State of Indiana
89S01-1109-CR-543
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony burglary, finding the evidence suggesting that Baker opened cupboards and
drawers in the kitchen is enough to support a reasonable inference that the defendant entered the church with intent to commit
theft inside.
Wednesday’s opinions
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Cristofer Tichenor
11-2433
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Sarah Evans Barker
Criminal. Affirms 300-month sentence following guilty plea to armed robbery and discharging a firearm in connection with
robbing a bank. Rejects Tichenor’s argument that the career offender sentencing guideline is unconstitutionally vague,
finding that the guidelines are not susceptible to vagueness challenges and the U.S. Sentencing Commission did not exceed
its authority by promulgating the “crime of violence” definition.
Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions at IL deadline.
Indiana Court of Appeals
In
Re the Matter of: B.N. and H.C., Children in Need of Services; M.C. v. Marion Co. Dept. of Child Services and Child Advocates,
Inc.
49A02-1110-JC-1025
Juvenile. Reverses determination that children are in need of services. There is insufficient evidence to support the determination
that the children’s physical or mental conditions were seriously impaired or endangered as a result of the inability,
refusal or neglect of the parent to supply the children with food, clothing, shelter, medical care, education or supervision.
Anthony
D. Gorman v. State of Indiana
49A05-1110-CR-556
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class B felony robbery while armed with a deadly weapon. There is sufficient
evidence to support his convictions.
Dennis
Jack Horner v. Marcia (Horner) Carter
34A02-1111-DR-1029
Domestic relation. Affirms denial of Horner’s request to modify the terms of a mediated settlement agreement. Alternative
Dispute Resolution Rule 2.11 and Indiana Evidence Rule 408 allow the introduction of mediation communications to establish
traditional contract defenses, so the trial court erred in excluding the evidence of mediation communications to establish
that a mistake occurred in drafting the agreement. But his testimony about the mediation communications falls short
of establishing any mistake that might entitle him to relief, so this was a harmless error. The trial court properly determined
that the agreement in this case provided for a property settlement that survived Carter’s remarriage.
Chad
Stewart v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1110-CR-972
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to two counts of Class B felony child molesting.
Auto
Liquidation Center, Inc. v. McKesha Bates (NFP)
02A03-1111-SC-553
Small claim. Affirms judgment in favor of Bates on her breach of contract and criminal conversion claims. Remands for calculation
of appellate attorney fees owed to Bates.
Carl
D. Jackson, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1111-CR-500
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony battery.
Anthony
Michael Beck and Sandra Beck, natural parents and next friends of Jacob Leslie Beck, minor v. Scott Memorial Hospital and
Larry Hunefeld, M.D. (NFP)
72A01-1107-CC-293
Civil collection. Affirms grant of a motion in limine filed by Scott Memorial Hospital.














Qualified immunity, means that if you wear a badge, you are exempt from law and free to do anything you please! The courts will back badge toting individuals, because they think they are above the law as well. They think, they have judicial immunity, they do not.
Deeply, deeply concerned? I'll bet if it was the judge's money that had been swindled we'd see deep concern with actual consequences. First a Ponzi scheme, then a shell game with the assets…c'mon, hasn't Conour abused the judicial system and his clients long enough? I say enough already.
Wow, just wow.
Forcing a defendant to wear a stun belt, in court or otherwise, is a violation of american principles! It is also unconstitutional!
So, if I save $100.00 cash per week, from my $500.00 per week paycheck, for 50 years, at which time, I will have saved $260,000.00, the government can raid my home and take my money, just by saying it is drug money! Shouldn't the government, have some kind of evidence of drugs, rather, than just saying we are the government and we will take anything you own, anytime we choose? Tyranny is upon us! If you don't know your rights, you don't have any!