ILNews

Opinions Nov. 15, 2011

November 15, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals had posted no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Jesse Puckett v. State of Indiana
90A02-1104-CR-369
Criminal. Reverses sentencing decision that required Puckett to serve his entire previously suspended four-year sentence after Puckett admitted to violating his probation for Class C felony child molesting. The trial judge’s statement of reasons for the sentence is problematic. Holds it is improper when revoking probation for a trial court to find that the defendant actually committed a more serious crime than the one or ones of which he or she was originally convicted. Remands for another hearing regarding the revocation of probation.

Clayter Hale v. SS Liquors, Inc., and Safe Step, Inc.
73A01-1104-CT-179
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment for SS Liquors and Safe Step Inc. on Hale’s personal injury negligence action. Declines to say that slipping and falling in a bathtub while taking a shower is something that does not happen “in the ordinary course of things.” There is no evidence that the bathtub at the time of Hale’s fall was unreasonably safe.

David R. Camm v. State of Indiana
87A01-1102-CR-25
Criminal. Reverses denial of Camm’s petition for appointment of a special prosecutor. Floyd County Prosecutor Keith Henderson’s cancelled literary contract created an irreversible, actual conflict of interest with his duty to the people of the state of Indiana. Remands for appointment of a special prosecutor and for proceedings consistent with the opinion.

In the Matter of the Guardianship of J.K., J.G. v. A.K. (NFP)
66A03-1005-JP-345
Juvenile. Affirms order denying father J.G.’s motion to terminate grandmother A.K.’s temporary guardianship of his daughter J.K. and the order granting A.K.’s petition for permanent guardianship over the daughter.

Roland Devoe v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1104-CR-312
Criminal. Affirms decision to join two causes against Devoe.

Gregory Brooks, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1012-CR-766
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to two counts of murder in perpetration of a robbery.

David J. Wierenga v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1101-CR-159
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class C felony auto theft and habitual offender status.

Joshua D. Sutton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A05-1104-CR-223
Criminal. Affirms convictions of three counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor as Class A misdemeanors.

Jason Ross v. State of Indiana (NFP)
12A05-1102-CR-82
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony operating a vehicle as a habitual traffic violator and Class A misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia.

North Lake Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, LLC d/b/a North Lake Rehabilitation Center v. The Estate of Cocteus Mason by Special Administrator, Tyniesha Spears (NFP)
45A03-1105-CT-229
Civil tort. Affirms denial of North Lake’s motion for preliminary determination of a proposed complaint filed with the Indiana Department of Insurance.

Wilson Makori v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1103-CR-103
Criminal. Affirms convictions Class A misdemeanor operating while intoxicated, which was enhanced to a Class D felony based on a previous OWI conviction, resisting law enforcement and criminal recklessness.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

The Indiana Supreme Court denied transfer to one case for the week ending Nov. 11.
 

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 work with some older lawyers in the 70s, 80s, and they are sharp as tacks compared to the foggy minded, undisciplined, inexperienced, listless & aimless "youths" being churned out by the diploma mill law schools by the tens of thousands. A client is generally lucky to land a lawyer who has decided to stay in practice a long time. Young people shouldn't kid themselves. Experience is golden especially in something like law. When you start out as a new lawyer you are about as powerful as a babe in the cradle. Whereas the silver halo of age usually crowns someone who can strike like thunder.

  2. YES I WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION WITH MY YOUNGEST SON PEOPLE NEED TO LEAVE US ALONE WITH DCS IF WE ARE NOT HURTING OR NEGLECT OUR CHILDREN WHY ARE THEY EVEN CALLED OUT AND THE PEOPLE MAKING FALSE REPORTS NEED TO GO TO JAIL AND HAVE A CLASS D FELONY ON THERE RECORD TO SEE HOW IT FEELS. I WENT THREW ALOT WHEN HE WAS TAKEN WHAT ELSE DOES THESE SCHOOL WANT ME TO SERVE 25 YEARS TO LIFE ON LIES THERE TELLING OR EVEN LE SAME THING LIED TO THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR JUST SO I WOULD GET ARRESTED AND GET TIME HE THOUGHT AND IT TURNED OUT I DID WHAT I HAD TO DO NOT PROUD OF WHAT HAPPEN AND SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SEEKING MEDICAL ATTENTION FOR MY CHILD I AM DISABLED AND SICK OF GETTING TREATED BADLY HOW WOULD THEY LIKE IT IF I CALLED APS ON THEM FOR A CHANGE THEN THEY CAN COME AND ARREST THEM RIGHT OUT OF THE SCHOOL. NOW WE ARE HOMELESS AND THE CHILDREN ARE STAYING WITH A RELATIVE AND GUARDIAN AND THE SCHOOL WON'T LET THEM GO TO SCHOOL THERE BUT WANT THEM TO GO TO SCHOOL WHERE BULLYING IS ALLOWED REAL SMART THINKING ON A SCHOOL STAFF.

  3. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  4. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  5. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

ADVERTISEMENT