ILNews

Opinions Nov. 16, 2010

November 16, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Kevin L. Hampton v. State of Indiana
84A04-1002-PC-122
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief. There was no error in omitting the requested sentence and appellate counsel did not fail to provide effective assistance.

State of Indiana v. J.S.
49A02-1004-JV-567
Juvenile. Affirms dismissal of delinquency petition against J.S. after he was found incompetent to stand trial. Given the extensive expert reports finding J.S. incompetent, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in finding him incompetent to stand trial. The charges should not remain pending to see if he regains competency before he is 18 and the record reveals his family is aware of his problems and trying to help him.

Vaughn A. Reeves, Jr. v. State of Indiana
77A04-1005-CR-292
Criminal. Affirms in part denial of Reeves’ motion to dismiss 10 counts of Class C felony aiding, inducing, or causing securities fraud. Because a portion of the 10 charging informations, on their face, allege a time period outside the statute of limitations and do not allege facts sufficient to constitute an exception to the statute, the trial court should have granted, in part, Reeves’ motion to dismiss as to these dates that fell outside the statute of limitation. Remands for consideration, as set forth in Indiana Code Section 35-34-1-4(d), of whether the trial court will discharge the defendant as to specific dates or deny the discharge upon determining that the prosecutor would be entitled to cure the information by amendment.

Blake Parkins v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1002-CR-345
Criminal. Affirms conviction of criminal recklessness with the use of a motor vehicle as a Class A misdemeanor.

Christina Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A01-1003-CR-153
Criminal. Revises sentence following Smith’s guilty plea to Class C felony reckless homicide and remands for trial court to impose sentence of four years with two years suspended.

Jamarr Da-Juan Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1001-CR-39
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony voluntary manslaughter, Class C felony battery, and Class C felony attempted battery.

Jane Marie Burkart v. State of Indiana (NFP)
46A03-0908-CR-385
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for five counts of Class B misdemeanor abandonment or neglect of vertebrate animals.

Kenneth W. Ellis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
25A03-1007-CR-407
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to dealing in cocaine as a Class B felony.

Antonio Simeone, et al. v. Schreiber Lumber, Inc., et al. (NFP)
49A02-1002-CP-177
Civil plenary. Affirms judgment in favor of Dave Beck on negligence and constructive fraud claims, partial summary judgment for Schreiber Lumber, Bova’s counterclaim for breach of contract, and that the evidence supports the trial court judgment.

Jason Montgomery v. State of Indiana (NFP)
17A04-1002-CR-95
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony burglary.

Michael J. Kempf v. State of Indiana (NFP)
65A01-1003-CR-134
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony operating a vehicle while an habitual traffic offender.

Raymond Hannah v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A04-1004-CR-225
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class C felony nonsupport of a dependent child.

Christopher Martin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1003-CR-152
Criminal. Affirms sentence following conviction of Class C felony reckless homicide.

Justin Stanback v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1004-CR-251
Criminal. Reverses denial of Stanback’s request to file a belated notice of appeal and remands for further proceedings.

Cory R. Dowden v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A02-1004-CR-562
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony receiving stolen property.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  2. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

  3. This law is troubling in two respects: First, why wasn't the law reviewed "with the intention of getting all the facts surrounding the legislation and its actual impact on the marketplace" BEFORE it was passed and signed? Seems a bit backwards to me (even acknowledging that this is the Indiana state legislature we're talking about. Second, what is it with the laws in this state that seem to create artificial monopolies in various industries? Besides this one, the other law that comes to mind is the legislation that governed the granting of licenses to firms that wanted to set up craft distilleries. The licensing was limited to only those entities that were already in the craft beer brewing business. Republicans in this state talk a big game when it comes to being "business friendly". They're friendly alright . . . to certain businesses.

  4. Gretchen, Asia, Roberto, Tonia, Shannon, Cheri, Nicholas, Sondra, Carey, Laura ... my heart breaks for you, reaching out in a forum in which you are ignored by a professional suffering through both compassion fatigue and the love of filthy lucre. Most if not all of you seek a warm blooded Hoosier attorney unafraid to take on the government and plead that government officials have acted unconstitutionally to try to save a family and/or rescue children in need and/or press individual rights against the Leviathan state. I know an attorney from Kansas who has taken such cases across the country, arguing before half of the federal courts of appeal and presenting cases to the US S.Ct. numerous times seeking cert. Unfortunately, due to his zeal for the constitutional rights of peasants and willingness to confront powerful government bureaucrats seemingly violating the same ... he was denied character and fitness certification to join the Indiana bar, even after he was cleared to sit for, and passed, both the bar exam and ethics exam. And was even admitted to the Indiana federal bar! NOW KNOW THIS .... you will face headwinds and difficulties in locating a zealously motivated Hoosier attorney to face off against powerful government agents who violate the constitution, for those who do so tend to end up as marginalized as Paul Odgen, who was driven from the profession. So beware, many are mere expensive lapdogs, the kind of breed who will gladly take a large retainer, but then fail to press against the status quo and powers that be when told to heel to. It is a common belief among some in Indiana that those attorneys who truly fight the power and rigorously confront corruption often end up, actually or metaphorically, in real life or at least as to their careers, as dead as the late, great Gary Welch. All of that said, I wish you the very best in finding a Hoosier attorney with a fighting spirit to press your rights as far as you can, for you do have rights against government actors, no matter what said actors may tell you otherwise. Attorneys outside the elitist camp are often better fighters that those owing the powers that be for their salaries, corner offices and end of year bonuses. So do not be afraid to retain a green horn or unconnected lawyer, many of them are fine men and woman who are yet untainted by the "unique" Hoosier system.

  5. I am not the John below. He is a journalist and talk show host who knows me through my years working in Kansas government. I did no ask John to post the note below ...

ADVERTISEMENT