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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  2. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  3. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  4. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  5. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

ADVERTISEMENT