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. Bob Leonard killed two people named Jennifer and Dion Longworth. There were no Smiths involved.

  2. Being on this journey from the beginning has convinced me the justice system really doesn't care about the welfare of the child. The trial court judge knew the child belonged with the mother. The father having total disregard for the rules of the court. Not only did this cost the mother and child valuable time together but thousands in legal fees. When the child was with the father the mother paid her child support. When the child was finally with the right parent somehow the father got away without having to pay one penny of child support. He had to be in control. Since he withheld all information regarding the child's welfare he put her in harms way. Mother took the child to the doctor when she got sick and was totally embarrassed she knew nothing regarding the medical information especially the allergies, The mother texted the father (from the doctors office) and he replied call his attorney. To me this doesn't seem like a concerned father. Seeing the child upset when she had to go back to the father. What upset me the most was finding out the child sleeps with him. Sometimes in the nude. Maybe I don't understand all the rules of the law but I thought this was also morally wrong. A concerned parent would allow the child to finish the school year. Say goodbye to her friends. It saddens me to know the child will not have contact with the sisters, aunts, uncles and the 87 year old grandfather. He didn't allow it before. Only the mother is allowed to talk to the child. I don't think now will be any different. I hope the decision the courts made would've been the same one if this was a member of their family. Someday this child will end up in therapy if allowed to remain with the father.

  3. Ok attorney Straw ... if that be a good idea ... And I am not saying it is ... but if it were ... would that be ripe prior to her suffering an embarrassing remand from the Seventh? Seems more than a tad premature here soldier. One putting on the armor should not boast liked one taking it off.

  4. The judge thinks that she is so cute to deny jurisdiction, but without jurisdiction, she loses her immunity. She did not give me any due process hearing or any discovery, like the Middlesex case provided for that lawyer. Because she has refused to protect me and she has no immunity because she rejected jurisdiction, I am now suing her in her district.

  5. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

ADVERTISEMENT