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. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT