ILNews

Opinions - May 26, 2010

May 27, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Tracey Wallace and Eric Wallace v. Jonathan S. McGlothan
07-4059
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Terre Haute Division, Judge Larry J. McKinney
Civil. Affirms jury verdict in favor of and damages in the amount of $700,000 to the Wallaces following their diversity suit against Dr. McGlothan. The Wallaces sued Dr. McGlothan for medical malpractice following surgery he performed on Tracey Wallace to correct her vision problems. The procedure ended up causing more harm than good.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions before IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Donald T. Shell v. State of Indiana
48A02-0904-CR-325
Criminal. Affirms Shell’s convictions of Class B felony possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, Class D felony possession of marijuana, Class D felony maintaining a common nuisance, and two counts of Class D felony possession of a controlled substance. Also affirms sentenced of an aggregate term of 18 years.

Julie Smitson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A05-0911-CR-660
Criminal. Affirms revocation of Smitson’s probation.

Ricky L. Rust v. State of Indiana (NFP)
80A04-0907-CR-428
Criminal. Affirms Rust’s convictions of and sentences for Class D felony criminal recklessness, Class C felony battery, and Class B felony criminal confinement.

Lawrence Echols v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-0908-CR-752
Criminal. Affirms Echols’ convictions of and sentences for Class D felony intimidation, and Class A misdemeanor domestic battery.

Janyer Pinto v. State of Indiana (NFP)
03A01-0908-CR-427
Criminal. Affirms Pinto’s convictions of and sentences for Class D felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated and Class D felony resisting law enforcement.

Salvador A. Perez v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1001-CR-35
Criminal. Affirms Perez’ conviction of and sentence for failure to register as a sex offender, a Class D felony.

John Pemberton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-0910-CR-1054
Criminal. Affirms Pemberton’s conviction of child molesting, a Class A felony.

Edgar Mendizabal v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-0909-PC-899
Post-conviction. Affirms denial of Mendizabal’s petition for post-conviction relief.

Russell Ralston v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-0909-CR-929
Criminal. Affirms Ralston’s conviction of Class B felony aggravated battery. Reverses trial court’s order for Ralston to pay the public defender fee without determining his ability to pay and remands.

Marcos Espinosa v. State of Indiana (NFP)
30A01-1002-CR-67
Criminal. Affirms Espinosa’s conviction of and sentence for Class B felony sexual misconduct with a minor following his guilty plea.

Erick George Black v. Marcy Ann Black (NFP)
37A04-0909-CV-552
Civil. Reverses and remand’s trial court’s order that reduced father Erick George Black’s child support obligation, but did not modify the tax exemptions for the dependent children. Father argued he should owe no child support because he is the custodial parent, and that he should receive the tax exemptions for both children.

Anthony E. Griffin Sr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-0912-CR-575
Criminal. Affirms Griffin’s conviction of rape, a Class B felony.

Adoption of T.L.J.; R.O. v. C.J. (NFP)
71A05-0912-CV-691
Civil. Affirms trial court’s grant of a petition to adopt T.L.J. filed by C.J. (stepmother). R.O. (mother) had appealed.

Matter of L.W. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-0911-JV-1119
Juvenile. Affirms L.W.’s adjudication as a delinquent child for committing resisting law enforcement, which would be a Class A misdemeanor if committed by an adult.

State of Indiana v. Patrick J. Davis (NFP)
02A05-1001-CR-7
Criminal. Reverses and remands trial court’s order dismissing the state’s petition to revoke Davis’ probation. Finds it need not be established that the defendant was explicitly advised that he is prohibited from committing new offenses while on probation.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions before IL deadline.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT