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. 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?

  2. 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?

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT