ILNews

Opinions June 17, 2011

June 17, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Supreme Court opinion was posted after IL deadline Thursday:
In the Matter of Mark R. McKinney
18S00-0905-DI-220
Attorney discipline action. Suspends Mark R. McKinney from the practice of law for 120 days, beginning July 28, for violation of Indiana Professional Conduct Rules.

Today's opinions
Indiana Supreme Court has posted no opinions as of IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Shaun M. Berry v. State of Indiana
57A03-1011-CR-579
Criminal. Reverses trial court’s imposition of public defender fee and remands for a determination of Shaun Berry’s ability to pay for his legal services and for clarification of $364 in court costs. Holds the court failed to identify statutory authorization for imposing court costs and failed to make statutorily required finding that Berry had the ability to pay public defender fee.

Involuntary Commitment of T.A.
49A02-1011-MH-1243
Mental health. Affirms involuntary commitment of T.A., holding sufficient evidence exists to support a doctor’s conclusion that T.A. is gravely disabled by mental illness and does not have a realistic plan for self care.

Carlton Wright v. State of Indiana
10A01-1009-CR-517
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class D felony criminal confinement, citing Indiana’s double jeopardy rules, and remands to trial court to vacate conviction. Affirms conviction of robbery and enhanced sentence, due to criminal history and character.

Danny Holloway v. State of Indiana
49A05-1011-CR-703
Criminal. Affirms sentence of Class B felony burglary, stating sentence was not inappropriate in light of Danny Holloway’s criminal background and character.

Michael W. Baker v. State of Indiana (NFP)
89A01-1010-CR-536
Criminal. Reverses Class B felony burglary conviction and determination that Michael Baker was an habitual offender. Remands for entry of judgment of conviction for criminal trespass and sentence on that offense.

Jason R. Chilafoe v. State of Indiana (NFP)
57A05-1011-CR-711
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s assessment of public defender fees and other court costs and fees.

Cary R. Wollenweber v. Hawkins Enterprises, Inc., et al. (NFP)
32A01-1007-PL-318
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court’s ruling granting summary judgment in favor of Hawkins Enterprises, Inc. doing business as The Mattress Superstore in Wollenweber’s suit alleging violations of the Wage Payment Statute, Wage Claims Statute, and Fair Labor Standards Act.

Damian A. Rosales v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A05-1010-CR-620
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony dealing in methamphetamine and Class D felony possession of more than 30 grams of marijuana, along with aggregate sentence that includes another felony and one misdemeanor charge.

Paul Patterson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
09A02-1009-CR-1041
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class B felony dealing in cocaine.

Brien E. Franklin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A05-1010-CR-732
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Virgil E. Griffin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
46A03-1003-PC-106
Post-conviction relief. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Travis W. Britt v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1011-CR-1258
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s revocation of community corrections placement and order that Travis Britt return to the Department of Correction.

Victor Adamson-Scott v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1010-CR-604
Criminal. Affirms felony murder conviction.

Kasi Ballew v. State of Indiana (NFP)
22A04-1008-CR-555
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class B felony dealing in a schedule II controlled substance.

Richard E. Dell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
80A04-1009-CR-582
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony sexual battery.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions as of 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