ILNews

Opinions March 4, 2013

March 4, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Michael Williams, Jr. v. State of Indiana
30A01-1207-CR-305
Criminal. Reverses convictions of Class B felonies burglary and conspiracy to commit burglary, and Class C felony carrying a handgun without a license. Williams’ trial counsel’s performance was deficient by failing to object under Indiana Evidence Rule 404(b) to the admission of evidence of William’s previous bad acts and convictions. Remands for a new trial.

In Re the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of S.H. and E.H., N.H. v. The Indiana Department of Child Services and Lake County Court Appointed Special Advocate (NFP)
45A03-1207-JT-313
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Antonio Highbaugh v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1201-CR-3
Criminal. Affirms sentence of 365 days of incarceration with 361 days suspended to probation for Class A misdemeanor residential entry.

In Re the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of T.J.: S.J. v. The Indiana Department of Child Services and Child Advocates, Inc. (NFP)

49A04-1207-JT-342
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

David S. Healey v. State of Indiana (NFP)

33A04-1202-MI-107
Miscellaneous. Grants petition for rehearing, reverses denial of verified petition to remove designation as a sex offender, and remands for further proceedings.

Anthoney D. Coveleski v. State of Indiana (NFP)

84A05-1206-CR-282
Criminal. Reverses Class D felony conviction and orders the trial court to enter the judgment of conviction on assisting a criminal as a Class A misdemeanor. Finds the state presented sufficient evidence to support the misdemeanor conviction.

Glenda Howell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A04-1208-CR-436
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class A felony dealing in cocaine.

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

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT