ILNews

Opinions March 18, 2014

March 18, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
David S. Delagrange v. State of Indiana
49S04-1304-CR-249
Criminal. Affirms convictions of four counts of Class C felony attempted child exploitation, finding sufficient evidence supports them. The state did not need to show Delagrange actually succeeded in capturing images of uncovered genitals, just that he took a “substantial step” toward doing so.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Donald Murdock v. State of Indiana
48A02-1306-CR-565
Criminal. Affirms finding that Murdock violated his probation terms when he committed Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement after running from a police officer who told him to stop. Well-established Indiana precedent holds that a person may not flee from a police officer who has told him to stop, even if the order is unlawful. Judge Mathias dissents.

Behavioral Health and Human Services Licensing Board, Kimble L. Richardson, George Brenner, Andrew Harner, Geneva Osawe, Rex Stockton, Carla Gaff-Clark, and The State of Indiana v. Elaine Williams
48A05-1304-PL-185
Civil plenary. Affirms the revocation of mental health counselor Elaine Williams’ license. The board afforded Williams fair proceedings and acted within its authority in imposing the sanction of revocation. Finds the trial court also impermissibly reweighed the credibility of the witnesses and substituted its judgment for that of the board when it overturned the revocation after conducting a second hearing.

In the Matter of A.G. and A.K. Children Alleged to be in Need of Services, M.K. v. Indiana Department of Child Services
82A05-1306-JC-297
Juvenile.  Affirms adjudication that A.G. and A.K. are children in need of services. The court’s findings support the remaining conclusions, which support the judgment. Rejects mother’s argument that the rule in Gash v. Kohm, 476 N.E.2d 910, 913 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985) – that the privilege against self-incrimination does not prohibit the trier of fact in a civil case from drawing adverse inferences from a witness’s refusal to testify – should not apply in CHINS proceedings.

Filiberto Rivera v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A04-1305-CR-264
Criminal. Affirms convictions and sentence for Class C felony burglary, Class D felony theft, and two counts of Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief.

Edgardo Jose Guido v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1307-CR-286
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class B felony incest.

Shawn McWhorter v. State of Indiana (NFP)
73A01-1309-PC-375
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: Bry.B. and B.B. (minor children) and A.B. (Mother) and M.B. (Father) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)

54A01-1310-JT-450
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Cecil Koger and Koger's, Inc. v. T&C, Inc., d/b/a I-70 Wrecker Service (NFP)
55A01-1305-CT-187
Civil tort. Affirms partial grant and partial denial of Koger’s motion for summary judgment on certain claims of T&C Inc. in its complaint for damages.

Ronnie D. Conley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
57A03-1308-CR-335
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class B felony dealing in a Schedule I, II or III controlled substance.

Harold Weir v. Riverwalk Holdings, LTD (NFP)
18A02-1310-CC-853
Civil collection. Affirms summary judgment for Riverwalk Holdings in an action to collect an indebtedness arising from a credit card account assigned to Riverwalk.  

Dennis Hankins v. State of Indiana (NFP)
30A01-1305-CR-234
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony attempted burglary.

Gayle Clark, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
76A05-1305-CR-261
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class D felony possession of marijuana and Class A misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia.

Eric Lewis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
36A04-1309-CR-464
Criminal. Affirms five-year sentence for Class C felony nonsupport of a dependent child.

Robert Fultz v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1311-CR-437
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony theft and admittance to being a habitual offender.

Henry Woods v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1308-CR-701
Criminal. Affirms order Woods pay $1,600 in restitution for damage to Bianca Cunningham’s vehicle.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: C.O. (Minor Child) and T.E. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
06A04-1307-JT-367
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Tony M. Castoreno, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
12A04-1306-CR-290
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felony battery by means of a deadly weapon and Class A misdemeanor unlawful possession of a firearm by a domestic batterer.

Timothy R. Hartwell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
84A04-1304-CR-208
Criminal. Affirms finding of guilty but mentally ill of Class C felony criminal stalking.

Renee Berry, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Jeffery Berry, Deceased v. Duke Energy Indiana, Inc., d/b/a Duke Energy (NFP)
49A02-1306-CT-483
Civil tort. Affirms judgment in favor of Duke Energy Indiana on Berry’s complaint alleging negligence.

The Indiana Tax Court posted no decisions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana opinions by IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  3. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  4. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  5. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

ADVERTISEMENT