ILNews

Opinions July 6, 2010

July 6, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Today’s opinions

Indiana Supreme Court posted no opinions before IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Derrick Bush v. State of Indiana
49A02-0907-CR-682
Criminal. On rehearing, reaffirms its ruling reversing Bush’s conviction of carrying a handgun without a license. Court of Appeals originally reversed the conviction after it held a canine sniff and resulting warrantless search of Bush’s automobile violated the Fourth Amendment because the state did not meet its burden of showing the traffic stop was not unreasonably prolonged or there was independent reasonable suspicion to justify the canine sniff.

George H. Culbertson v. State of Indiana
63A01-1002-CR-68
Criminal. Affirms Culbertson’s conviction following a bench trial for Class C felony nonsupport of a dependent child. The total amount of support arrearage due was $37,400. Following a sentencing hearing on Dec. 3, 2009, the trial court sentenced Culbertson to eight years, with two years suspended to probation.

Terry Huddleston v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A04-0912-CR-705
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver following guilty plea.

Sylvario Wilson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A05-1003-CR-158
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s denial of motion to withdraw a guilty plea. Remands for clarification of sentence or a new sentencing determination.

L.M., et al., Alleged to be Children in Need of Services; N.D. v. Marion County Dept. of Child Services and Child Advocates Inc. (NFP)
49A04-0911-JV-644
Juvenile. Reverses juvenile court’s adjudication of children, Le.M., L.M. Jr., and J.D., as children in need of services.
 
Roger L. Storey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
57A05-1001-CR-40
Criminal. Affirms six-year executed sentence following a guilty plea to Class C felony nonsupport of a dependent child.
 
Bryan Claywell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-0912-CR-1214
Criminal. Reverses conviction following bench trial for Class A felony child molesting.
 
Vidal Clayton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
21A01-1001-CR-9
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s order that the sentence imposed following guilty plea to Class A felony conspiracy to commit murder be served consecutively to a sentence imposed following an unrelated conviction.
 
Frank Byers v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-0910-CR-966
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony burglary, Class B felony robbery, and Class C felony criminal confinement.
 
Benjamin L. Underwood v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A05-0912-CR-707
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentences for murder and conspiracy to commit aggravated battery.
 
H & L Motors, LLC v. Millennium Auto Group Inc. (NFP)
43A03-1002-PL-105
Civil. Affirms trial court’s order dismissing H&L Motors’ complaint against Millennium Auto Group Inc.

Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions before IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT