ILNews

Opinions May 9, 2011

May 9, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Johnnie Stokes v. State of Indiana
49A04-1009-CR-578
Criminal. Affirms 44-year aggregate sentence for Class B felonies robbery, attempted robbery, and unlawful possession of a firearm, and Class C felony criminal recklessness. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in considering Stokes’ 2001 dealing in cocaine conviction and evidence of his extensive criminal record to enhance his sentences for his other present offenses. His sentences also do not violate the double jeopardy clause of the Indiana Constitution.

Brian E. Connell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
27A04-1010-CR-642
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for two counts of Class B felony burglary, Class C felony carrying a handgun without a license, two counts of Class D felony theft, Class D felony resisting law enforcement, Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana, and adjudication as a habitual offender.  

Jennings Daugherty v. State of Indiana (NFP)
89A01-1010-CR-520
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for Class D felony intimidation, Class D felony operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, two counts of Class B felony possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, and adjudication as a habitual offender.

Richard Cunningham v. Sandra Rains (NFP)
24A01-1011-PO-628
Protective order. Affirms issuance of protective order in favor of Rains.

Ryan Leon Stamm v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A04-1011-CR-727
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence following a guilty plea to felony murder, Class D felony resisting law enforcement, Class A misdemeanor criminal recklessness, and Class C felony carrying a handgun without a license.

George W. Wilson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A05-1007-PC-498
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Joseph James v. State of Indiana (NFP)
46A05-1008-CR-530
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class C felony stalking.


Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

The Indiana Supreme Court granted two transfers and denied 18 for the week ending May 6.
 

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