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. 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