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. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

  2. wow is this a bunch of bs! i know the facts!

  3. MCBA .... time for a new release about your entire membership (or is it just the alter ego) being "saddened and disappointed" in the failure to lynch a police officer protecting himself in the line of duty. But this time against Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation: "WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/justice-department-ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?ref=us&_r=0

  4. Dr wail asfour lives 3 hours from the hospital,where if he gets an emergency at least he needs three hours,while even if he is on call he should be in a location where it gives him max 10 minutes to be beside the patient,they get paid double on their on call days ,where look how they handle it,so if the death of the patient occurs on weekend and these doctors still repeat same pattern such issue should be raised,they should be closer to the patient.on other hand if all the death occured on the absence of the Dr and the nurses handle it,the nurses should get trained how to function appearntly they not that good,if the Dr lives 3 hours far from the hospital on his call days he should sleep in the hospital

  5. It's a capital offense...one for you Latin scholars..

ADVERTISEMENT