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. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT