Opinions Nov. 16, 2010

November 16, 2010
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
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.
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony burglary.

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

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

Christopher Martin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms sentence following conviction of Class C felony reckless homicide.

Justin Stanback v. State of Indiana (NFP)
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)
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony receiving stolen property.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.