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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT