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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  2. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  3. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  4. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  5. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

ADVERTISEMENT