ILNews

Opinions June 16, 2010

June 16, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

M.T. v. State of Indiana
49A04-0908-JV-484
Juvenile. Reverses modification of probation and commitment to the Department of Correction. The state presented no evidence of the probation violations it alleged and the state violated M.T.’s due process rights.

Jason G. Ertel v. State of Indiana
29A02-0908-CR-824
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated. The trial court didn’t abuse its discretion by admitting evidence obtained after Ertel’s car was stopped because the police officer had reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop.

John Dyer, David White, and Maurice Dillender v. James H. Hall and Nu-Plaza Yacht Club

82A01-0910-CV-510
Civil. Reverses summary judgment in favor of Hall on the complaint his boat docks interfere with Dyer, White, and Dillender’s use of the river. There is an issue of fact as to whether or to what extent the landowners have access to the river, and whether the deadmen installed on the landowners’ property are a nuisance or a trespass.

Paternity of R.M.; N.C. v. K.M. (NFP)
02A03-1001-JP-21
Juvenile. Affirms order denying father N.C.’s motion for change of venue from judge pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 76(B).

David Mazhandu v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A02-0909-CR-890
Criminal. Affirms conviction of resisting law enforcement as a Class A misdemeanor.

James D. Boyd v. State of Indiana (NFP)
90A04-1001-CR-30
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony child molesting. Reverses sentence and remands for it to be revised to 40 years in prison.

Rocky D. Beavers Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1002-CR-96
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class A felony child molesting and Class B felony incest.

Herman F. Filice v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-0911-CR-1109
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to “remove sexually violent predator status.”

J.M. Alleged to be C.H.I.N.S.; H.M. and D.M. v. I.D.C.S. (NFP)
20A03-0910-JV-480
Juvenile. Affirms finding that J.M. is a child in need of services.

Michael R. Pollard, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)

45A05-0910-CR-594
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony dealing in cocaine.

Rickey D. Gosha v. State of Indiana (NFP)

48A02-0910-CR-1006
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and order that Gosha serve the remainder of his sentence.

Lorenzo Borders v. City of Elkhart, Ind., et al. (NFP)
20A03-0907-CV-346
Civil. Affirms summary judgment and motions to dismiss Borders’ complaint for false arrest and false imprisonment in favor of the City of Elkhart, et al.

George Cox, et al. v. Honorable Roger D. Davis (NFP)
31A01-0912-CV-571
Civil. Affirms dismissal of complaint filed by Cox and others against Harrison Superior Judge Davis.

Jason Wells v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1004-CR-377
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony child molesting.

James A. Barber v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-0909-CR-916
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to two counts of child molestation as Class A felonies, and two counts of sexual misconduct with a minor as Class B felonies.

Larry Andrew Anderson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A04-0911-CR-656
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony possession of a controlled substance and Class D felony possession of a legend drug.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT