ILNews

Opinions May 27, 2011

May 27, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following opinions were posted after IL deadline Thursday:
Indiana Supreme Court
State of Indiana v. Jeffrey Brunner
57S04-1010-CR-603
Criminal. Reverses modification of Brunner’s conviction of Class D felony operating while intoxicated to a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court lacked statutory authority to modify the conviction and the trial court’s authority to reduce a Class D felony conviction to a Class A misdemeanor is limited to the moment of conviction and prior to sentencing. Remands for reinstatement of the original conviction.

State of Indiana v. Charles Boyle
49S05-1105-PC-305
Post conviction. Reverses trial court’s modification of Boyle’s conviction of Class D felony operating a motor vehicle while a habitual traffic offender to a Class A misdemeanor. It is in violation of statutory authority to modify the conviction under the circumstances of this case. Remands to reinstate the original conviction.

Today’s opinions

Indiana Supreme Court
In the Matter of the Honorable William J. Hughes, Judge of the Hamilton Superior Court
29S00-1105-JD-279
Judicial discliplinary action. Reprimands Hamilton Superior Judge William J. Hughes, terminating disciplinary proceedings relating to the circumstances giving rise to the cause.

In the Matter of Joshua A. Parilman
98S00-1012-DI-681
Attorney disciplinary action. Approves agreed discipline, barring respondent indefinitely from acts constituting the practice of law in this state, including temporary admission and solicitation of clients, until further order of the court.

Indiana Court of Appeals
State of Indiana v. Christopher J. Gill
84A04-1011-CR-812
Criminal. Reverses trial court’s grant of Christopher Gill’s motion to dismiss and remands for further proceedings, stating the victim’s decision to recant testimony is not grounds to dismiss a case.

Lisa R. Wright v. State of Indiana
57A03-1010-CR-570
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s assessment of a public defender fee, stating that the indigency hearing requirement does not apply when a defendant has entered into a cash bail-bond agreement.

In re George H. Edwardson Revocable Trust
87A01-1009-TR-501
Trust. Affirms probate court’s denial of motion to dismiss and a motion for judgment on the pleadings, holding that although one beneficiary moved assets to Maine, jurisdiction remains in Indiana.

Michael Bell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1010-CR-1134
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony attempted theft and adjudication as an habitual offender.

Quincy English v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1009-CR-527
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony aggravated battery.

Heriberto E. Rivera v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1010-CR-1142
Criminal. Affirms five child molesting convictions.

Alfred Solomon v. State of Indiana (NFP)
27A02-1005-CR-534
Criminal. Affirms convictions of murder and robbery resulting in serious bodily injury as a Class A felony.

Citron Stovall v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A04-1008-CR-618
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony dealing in cocaine.

Robert Paul Baston v. State of Indiana (NFP)
69A01-1008-CR-401
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class A felony child molesting.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at 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