ILNews

Opinions June 24, 2010

June 24, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Douglas Covey v. State of Indiana
30A01-0906-CR-311
Criminal. Affirms convictions of dealing in methamphetamine as a Class A felony, possession of methamphetamine as a Class B felony, possession of methamphetamine as a Class B felony, possession of marijuana as a Class A misdemeanor, and possession of paraphernalia a Class A misdemeanor. The state presented sufficient evidence to prove that Crosby lived in an “apartment complex” and thus Covey delivered the methamphetamine and possessed the methamphetamine in or within 1,000 feet of a “family housing complex.” Because Covey never placed the mitigating factors of Indiana Code Section 35-48-4-16(b) at issue, the trial court did not commit fundamental error by not instructing the jury on those mitigating factors.

Donald Wilson v. State of Indiana (NFP)

10A04-1001-PC-12
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Androuckoo Jones v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-0911-CR-1108
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two Class A misdemeanors, one for domestic battery, and one for resisting law enforcement.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of G.W.; J.W. v. IDCS (NFP)
48A02-0910-JV-1042
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Carleon M. Ragsdale v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-0912-CR-595
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felonies criminal recklessness and resisting law enforcement, and Class A misdemeanor possession of a firearm by a domestic batterer.

James Walsh v. State of Indiana (NFP)
52A05-0911-CR-667
Criminal. Reverses sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony burglary and admission to being a habitual offender. Remands with instructions.

R.D. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-0909-JV-840
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication for committing what would be Class D felony criminal recklessness if committed by an adult.

Anthony H. Taylor v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-0912-CR-602
Criminal. Reverses adjudication as a habitual offender.

Terrence Hopson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-0912-CR-1239
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony burglary.

Virgil J. Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
85A02-1001-CR-176
Criminal. Revises sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony robbery and remands for the trial court to order concurrent sentences for the robbery conviction and an unrelated case.

Robertson Developers v. Jerry Hodges, et al. (NFP)
18A02-0910-CV-1051
Civil. Affirms judgment in favor of defendants Hodges and others upon a claim for payment of lease. Remands for determination of reasonable attorney fees.

K. K. B. v. R. K. B. (NFP)
26A05-0910-CV-595
Civil. Affirms evidence supports all but one of the findings in the order entry awarding physical custody of children to father. Reverses finding that Mother did not adequately investigate S.B.’s allegation of sexual abuse is not supported by the evidence. Remands for the dissolution court to reconsider the remaining findings and the other evidence from the hearing on final custody in order to determine what physical custody order is in the children’s best interests, or, if no change to the custody award is indicated, to so state.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of J.K., et al.; S.K. v. IDCS (NFP)

71A03-1002-JT-94
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. A traditional parade of attorneys? Really Evansville? Y'all need to get out more. When is the traditional parade of notaries? Nurses? Sanitation workers? Pole dancers? I gotta wonder, do throngs of admiring citizens gather to laud these marching servants of the constitution? "Show us your billing records!!!" Hoping some video gets posted. Ours is not a narcissistic profession by any chance, is it? Nah .....

  2. My previous comment not an aside at court. I agree with smith. Good call. Just thought posting here a bit on the if it bleeds it leads side. Most attorneys need to think of last lines of story above.

  3. Hello everyone I'm Gina and I'm here for the exact same thing you are. I have the wonderful joy of waking up every morning to my heart being pulled out and sheer terror of what DCS is going to Throw at me and my family today.Let me start from the !bebeginning.My daughter lost all rights to her 3beautiful children due to Severe mental issues she no longer lives in our state and has cut all ties.DCS led her to belive that once she done signed over her right the babies would be with their family. We have faught screamed begged and anything else we could possibly due I hired a lawyer five grand down the drain.You know all I want is my babies home.I've done everything they have even asked me to do.Now their saying I can't see my grandchildren cause I'M on a prescription for paipain.I have a very rare blood disease it causes cellulitis a form of blood poisoning to stay dormant in my tissues and nervous system it also causes a ,blood clotting disorder.even with the two blood thinners I'm on I still Continue to develop them them also.DCS knows about my illness and still they refuse to let me see my grandchildren. I Love and miss them so much Please can anyone help Us my grandchildren and I they should be worrying about what toy there going to play with but instead there worrying about if there ever coming home again.THANK YOU DCS FOR ALL YOU'VE DONE. ( And if anyone at all has any ideals or knows who can help. Please contact (765)960~5096.only serious callers

  4. He must be a Rethuglican, for if from the other side of the aisle such acts would be merely personal and thus not something that attaches to his professional life. AND ... gotta love this ... oh, and on top of talking dirty on the phone, he also, as an aside, guess we should mention, might be important, not sure, but .... "In addition to these allegations, Keaton was accused of failing to file an appeal after he collected advance payment from a client seeking to challenge a ruling that the client repay benefits because of unreported income." rimshot

  5. I am not a fan of some of the 8.4 discipline we have seen for private conduct-- but this was so egregious and abusive and had so many points of bad conduct relates to the law and the lawyer's status as a lawyer that it is clearly a proper and just disbarment. A truly despicable account of bad acts showing unfit character to practice law. I applaud the outcome.

ADVERTISEMENT