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

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. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT