ILNews

Opinions March 12, 2013

March 12, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
Curtis A. Bethea v. State of Indiana
18S05-1206-PC-304
Post conviction. Affirms trial court denial of post-conviction relief, holding that Curtis Bethea, who pleaded guilty to armed robbery and criminal confinement in a deal that dropped seven other felony counts, was not improperly denied post-conviction relief when a judge considered evidence of charges that were dismissed.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Henry Keith Holloway v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A05-1202-CR-58
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony operating a vehicle after lifetime suspension and Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated.

Jennifer Duff v. State of Indiana (NFP)

89A01-1206-CR-280
Criminal. Affirms aggregate executed sentence of 18 years in prison for conviction of one Class B felony count of dealing in a Schedule I controlled substance; eight counts of Class C felony forgery; one count of Class C felony robbery; five counts of Class D felony theft; and three counts of Class C felony fraud.

Brian L. Spurlock, Sally M. Spurlock v. Morequity, Inc. (NFP)

29A04-1207-MF-345
Mortgage foreclosure. Dismisses appeal from an entry of a foreclosure judgment against the Spurlocks.

Kevin Burrell v. State of Indiana (NFP)

71A05-1208-CR-434
Criminal. Affirms conviction and aggregate sentence of 105 years in prison for two counts of Class A felony attempted murder, Class C felony criminal recklessness and a criminal gang activity sentence enhancement.

Kenneth D. Helton v. State of Indiana (NFP)

47A01-1205-CR-200
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine, Class D felony possession of marijuana and Class D felony maintaining a common nuisance, remanding to the trial court to correct a sentencing error. The appeals panel left in place an aggregate sentence of 23 years in prison but instructed the trial court to enhance the dealing in methamphetamine conviction by eight years instead of sentencing him separately for being a habitual substance offender.

John Ivy v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A02-1205-PC-378
Post conviction. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief from a 65-year sentence for a conviction of murder, concluding the post-conviction court erred in finding that Ivy had waived two issues, but notwithstanding that error, Ivy failed to demonstrate he was entitled to post-conviction relief on any of his claims.

Gary Gardner v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A05-1207-PC-379
Post conviction. Affirms in a divided opinion denial of post-conviction relief from a 90-year sentence for three counts of Class A felony child molesting, one count of Class C felony child molesting, and one count of Class C felony child exploitation. Senior Judge Betty Barteau and Judge Terry Crone formed the majority from which Judge Elaine Brown dissented, concluding that Gardner demonstrated ineffective counsel assistance because his appellate counsel failed to raise an issue related to the length of his sentence. Brown would find the trial court thus erred and remand for further proceedings.

Indiana Tax Court issued no opinions by IL deadline. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana opinions by 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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT