ILNews

Opinions May 6, 2011

May 6, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following opinion was posted after IL deadline Thursday:
Indiana Supreme Court
Joshua Konopasek v. State of Indiana
25S03-1012-CR-669
Criminal. Reaffirms the Fletcher limitation on the judicial-temperance presumption. Summarily affirms the Indiana Court of Appeals decision finding sufficient evidence to support Konopasek’s conviction and to disprove his self-defense claim. Concludes the trial court properly admitted the evidence in question and affirms his conviction of and sentence for Class C felony battery causing serious bodily injury.  

Today’s opinions
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Jermel C. Thomas
10-3566
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division,
Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr.
Criminal. Dismisses appeal, stating the District Court did not err in enforcing a plea agreement wherein Jermel Thomas had waived his right to appeal his sentence and conviction.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
John Witt, Hydrotech Corp. and Mark Shere v. Jay Petroleum, Inc. and Jack R. James
38A02-0912-CV-1290
Civil. Reverses trial court’s award of attorney fees to Jay Petroleum and Jack James, ruling the trial court erred when it determined the appellants were in contempt of court.  

Gayle D. Edelen v. State of Indiana
26A01-1007-CR-362
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felonies of perjury and official misconduct against Gayle D. Edelen, a caseworker for the Indiana Department of Child Services. States that the transcript of the closed juvenile procedure hearing in which Edelen perjured herself was admissible in Edelen’s perjury trial.

R.L. Turner Corporation v. Town of Brownsburg
32A01-1008-PL-373
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court’s order awarding attorney fees to the Town of Brownsburg, ruling that R.L. Turner Corporation’s lawsuit was frivolous, unreasonable, and groundless.

Dwayne Eversley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1008-CR-497
Criminal. Affirms convictions of invasion of privacy, as both a Class D felony and a Class A misdemeanor, and resisting law enforcement, as both a Class D felony and a Class A misdemeanor.

A.M. v. Review Board (NFP)
93A02-1008-EX-887
Civil. Affirms Indiana Department of Workforce Development Review Board’s denial of unemployment compensation benefits.

Steven Gray v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A05-1010-CR-690
Criminal. Affirms 50-year sentence for Class A felony child molesting. Reverses convictions of Class B felonies rape and incest on double jeopardy grounds, and remands with instructions to vacate.

Tiffany L. Otten v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1009-CR-538
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony neglect of a dependant.

Willie J. Herman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1010-CR-560
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony battery.

Jerry Kohlhouse v. Black's Excavation (NFP)
42A01-1010-SC-594
Small claim. Affirms trial court’s judgment for Black’s Excavation and its dismissal of Jerry Kohlhouse’s counter-claim.

A.F. & R.B. v. I.D.C.S. (NFP)
20A03-1010-JC-521
Juvenile CHINS. Affirms trial court’s adjudication of children as children in need of services.

Ronald Cox v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1009-CR-536
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class C felony child molesting and one count Class D felony child solicitation.

Jermarcus L. Grandberry v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A05-1010-CR-643
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class B felony burglary.

Jamie L. Vida v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1012-PL-664
Civil plenary. Reverses denial of verified petition for removal from the Indiana Sex Offender Registry. Remands with instructions to grant petition.

Tyler Sturdivant v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1008-CR-934
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felony battery and Class A misdemeanor battery.

Marlon D. Taylor v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1010-CR-597
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s finding that Taylor violated his community corrections placement and probation.

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT