ILNews

Opinions June 15, 2010

June 15, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Jeffrey D. Boggs v. State of Indiana
40A01-0907-CR-346
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and 40-year sentence for Class B felony attempted dealing in methamphetamine, two counts of Class C felony possession of a precursor while in possession of a firearm, Class D felony possession of methamphetamine, Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana, and finding that Boggs is a habitual offender. The police officer had a legitimate reason for being on Boggs’ property and didn’t move anything to observe the gas tank inside of Boggs’ car. The state presented sufficient evidence to prove the identity of the substances found and to support the habitual offender finding. Remands for the trial court to correct the sentencing order.

Paul Morris v. State of Indiana (NFP)
42A04-0912-CR-724
Criminal. Affirm convictions of Class C felony burglary and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

David Eugene Ball v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-0909-CR-940
Criminal. Affirms termination of work release.

Lonnie Ray Stone v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1001-CR-91
Criminal. Affirms Class C misdemeanor conviction of operating a vehicle with a blood alcohol content of at least 0.08 but less than 0.015.

Percy L. Lipscomb, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)

29A05-1002-CR-54
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class C felony forgery.

Roderick M. Walsh v. State of Indiana (NFP)
57A03-0911-CR-506
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor driving while intoxicated.

Andres Sanchez v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A04-0912-CR-720
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for three counts of Class A felony child molesting.

Michael Landon Deneal v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-0912-CR-569
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class C felony burglary.

Kelly Swegman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-0912-PC-738
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Brandon Puckett v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A02-0911-CR-1110
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea.

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