ILNews

Opinions June 14, 2011

June 14, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
Alva Curtis v. State of Indiana
49S02-1010-CR-620
Criminal. Reverses denial of Curtis’ motion to dismiss. The trial court should have granted Curtis’ motion to dismiss and discharge because the days that counted toward the Rule 4(C) period exceeded 365. Curtis is not entitled to dismissal on fundamental-fairness grounds because he has not been involuntarily committed and there hasn’t been an appropriate finding that he will never be restored to competency. Remands with instructions to dismiss the charging information.

Douglas Denzell v. State of Indiana
49S02-1106-CR-340
Criminal. Affirms denial of Denzell’s motion to dismiss. Denzell does not have a viable fundamental-fairness argument.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Elmos Jewell v. City of Indianapolis
49A02-1010-OV-1228
Local ordinance violation. Affirms finding Jewell violated Section 531-728 of the Revised Code of the Consolidated City and Marion County concerning animal care and other animal matters. The failure to mention this section in the agreed judgment in a previous violation case did not indicate that the city waived enforcement of that provision.  

T.L. v. J.L.
54A01-1008-DR-386
Domestic relation. Affirms grant of father J.L.’s motion to prevent mother T.L. from relocating to Tennessee with their minor sons. Mother has shown good faith and legitimate reasons for proposing the relocation, but the trial court didn’t err in concluding that the relocation wasn’t in the children’s best interests.

State of Indiana v. Robert Rhodes
49A05-1012-CR-818
Criminal. Affirms grant of Rhodes' motion to suppress after he was charged with operating while intoxicated. The state failed to show that compliance with the statute regarding turn signaling was possible under the circumstances and Rhodes was not properly stopped for a traffic violation. The trial court did not err by determining that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop Rhodes.

Richard D. Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)

87A05-1101-CR-42
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class C felony forgery, Class D felony fraud, and Class D felony receiving stolen property.

B.B. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A05-1012-JV-791
Juvenile. Affirms modification of order awarding wardship of B.B. to the Indiana Department of Correction.

Karen Vanderbosch v. Thomas Vanderbosch (NFP)
02A03-1007-DR-357
Domestic relation. Reverses order finding that Thomas Vanderbosch overpaid child support, giving him a credit for that overpayment; and finding that one of his children repudiated his relationship with Thomas and thereby eliminated Thomas’ obligation to contribute to post-secondary educational expenses. Remands for further proceedings.

James D. Bailey, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A05-1006-CR-337
Criminal. Affirms conviction of felony murder in perpetration of a robbery.

Purnell L. Moore v. State of Indiana (NFP)
54A01-1011-CR-593
Criminal. Affirms order directing Moore serve the remaining four years of his suspended sentence following the revocation of his probation.

Elizabeth Noll v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A04-1010-CR-651
Criminal. Affirms conviction of intimidation as a Class A misdemeanor.

James D. Douglas v. State of Indiana (NFP)
73A01-1010-CR-586
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and order that Douglas serve one year of his remaining sentence in prison.

David Marsee v. State of Indiana (NFP)
17A03-1010-CR-520
Criminal. Affirms conviction of dealing in methamphetamine as a Class A felony.

Mark Rector Bryan v. Tammy A. Bryan (NFP)

82A01-1008-DR-416
Domestic relation. Affirms calculation of child support obligation of Mark Bryan.

Superior Mortgage Funding, LLC, Jeremie Sheneman, Michael Sheneman and Andrew Beam v. Gladys Zoleko and Paul Davies (NFP)
71A05-1007-PL-432
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of Michael and Jeremie Sheneman’s motion to set aside judgment enforcing their settlement agreement with Gladys Zoleko and Paul Davies. Affirms denial of Michael’s motion to disqualify the plaintiffs’ counsel.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT