ILNews

Opinions Nov. 12, 2013

November 12, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
James Edward Banks, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1301-CR-38
Criminal. Affirms denial of Banks’ motion to correct erroneous sentence.

Bill R. Clark v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1304-CR-160
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s order for Clark to pay restitution. Clark argued the court did not inquire about his ability to reimburse the state and his landlord for costs associated with cleaning up his meth lab. The COA rules the presentence investigation report indicated Clark would be able to pay and Clark told the trial court he had the means to pay.  

Matthew Townsend v. Lyvonda Townsend (NFP)
31A04-1303-DR-133
Domestic relation. Affirms trial court’s decision to award sole legal and primary physical custody Townsend’s son, E.T., to the boy’s mother.

Derek Lee Morris v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1304-CR-367
Criminal. Affirms denial of Morris’ petition for educational credit time.

John R. Tyrrell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1301-PC-11
Post conviction. Affirms post-conviction court’s denial of Tyrrell’s petition for post-conviction relief.

Larry Harris v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1211-CR-584
Criminal. Affirms 45-year sentence for one county of Class A felony child molesting.

Mitchell A. Barnes v. State of Indiana (NFP)
84A01-1304-CR-281
Criminal. Affirms aggregated nine-year sentence in exchange for pleading guilty to three counts of Class D felony theft.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana opinions by 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