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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT