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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT