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

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