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. Can I get this form on line,if not where can I obtain one. I am eligible.

  2. What a fine example of the best of the Hoosier tradition! How sad that the AP has to include partisan snark in the obit for this great American patriot and adventurer.

  3. Why are all these lawyers yakking to the media about pending matters? Trial by media? What the devil happened to not making extrajudicial statements? The system is falling apart.

  4. It is a sad story indeed as this couple has been only in survival mode, NOT found guilty with Ponzi, shaken down for 5 years and pursued by prosecution that has been ignited by a civil suit with very deep pockets wrenched in their bitterness...It has been said that many of us are breaking an average of 300 federal laws a day without even knowing it. Structuring laws, & civilForfeiture laws are among the scariest that need to be restructured or repealed . These laws were initially created for drug Lords and laundering money and now reach over that line. Here you have a couple that took out their own money, not drug money, not laundering. Yes...Many upset that they lost money...but how much did they make before it all fell apart? No one ask that question? A civil suit against Williams was awarded because he has no more money to fight...they pushed for a break in order...they took all his belongings...even underwear, shoes and clothes? who does that? What allows that? Maybe if you had the picture of him purchasing a jacket at the Goodwill just to go to court the next day...his enemy may be satisfied? But not likely...bitterness is a master. For happy ending lovers, you will be happy to know they have a faith that has changed their world and a solid love that many of us can only dream about. They will spend their time in federal jail for taking their money from their account, but at the end of the day they have loyal friends, a true love and a hope of a new life in time...and none of that can be bought or taken That is the real story.

  5. Could be his email did something especially heinous, really over the top like questioning Ind S.Ct. officials or accusing JLAP of being the political correctness police.

ADVERTISEMENT