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

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