ILNews

Opinions March 27, 2013

March 27, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Terrence J. Fuqua v. State of Indiana
02A03-1207-CR-342
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony dealing in cocaine, Class B felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, Class D felonies possession of a controlled substance and dealing in marijuana, and Class A misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia. The investigating detectives had reasonable suspicion to search Fuqua’s trash, and the subsequent search warrant was supported by probable cause. The trial court acted within its discretion when it admitted evidence seized during the execution of the search warrant.

State of Indiana v. Antonio Gonzalez-Vazquez
09A02-1210-PC-792
Post conviction. Reverses denial of state’s motion to correct error challenging the grant of summary judgment to Gonzalez-Vazquez on his petition for post-conviction relief. The post-conviction court erred in striking the state’s response as untimely. Remands for further proceedings.

Michael L. Harris v. State of Indiana
20A04-1204-CR-225
Criminal. Finds Harris’ conviction of Class A misdemeanor sex offender internet offense under I.C. 35-42-4-12 violates the First Amendment and reverses his conviction. His constitutional challenges to I.C. 11-8-8-8(a)(7) under the First Amendment and under Article 1, sections 9 and 24 of the Indiana Constitution fail. The state produced sufficient evidence to support Harris’ conviction of failure to register as a sex offender under that statute. Judge Crone concurs in part and concurs in result in part with separate opinion.

In Re The Guardianship of A.J.A. and L.M.A., J.C. v. J.B. and S.B.

48A02-1204-GU-326
Guardianship. Reverses order vacating paternal grandmother J.C.’s grandparent visitation rights on the basis the trial court that initially granted these rights lacked the statutory authority to do so. Concludes that although the grandmother lacked standing to pursue the original grandparent visitation order, the guardians’ objections to her want of standing were waived when they failed to appeal the original order. Also concludes the grandmother’s visitation rights were not terminated by the adoption of the girls because they were adopted by J.B., who is their uncle, and his partner.

Joseph J. Scott v. State of Indiana
45A04-1208-PC-420
Post conviction. Reverses denial of petition for post-conviction relief and remands with instructions to impose a sentence of 23 years, all executed, for the guilty plea of Class B felony operating a vehicle with a BAC of at least 0.18 grams per deciliter and Class B felony resisting law enforcement causing death. Scott is entitled to relief due to ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

Marc Stults v. State of Indiana (NFP)

11A05-1210-CR-534
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony failure to register as a sex or violent offender.

Pamela A. Thompson v. Carroll E. Thompson (NFP)

33A01-1210-DR-454
Domestic relation. Affirms in part and reverses in part the dissolution of the Thompsons’ marriage. The record supports the court’s finding on and determination in finding that Pamela Thompson incurred only $3,000 in home repair costs during the pendency of the dissolution. Remands for further proceedings regarding a pension’s value.

In Re Paternity of G.K., A Minor Child; K.D.K. v. N.K. (NFP)
20A03-1209-JP-400
Juvenile. Affirms determination that husband K.D.K. failed to overcome the presumption that G.K. was a child of his marriage to wife N.K.

William D. Everage, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)

48A04-1207-CR-391
Criminal. Affirms 253-year aggregate sentence imposed for various convictions committed against five child victims, including 12 counts of Class A felony child molesting.

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

  2. 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.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT