ILNews

Opinions Nov. 17, 2010

November 17, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Rosalio Cruz-Rea and Zoyla Garcia-Rea
09-3591, 10-1355
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Evansville Division, Chief Judge Richard L. Young.
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentences of Cruz-Rea for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine and possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine, and convictions of and sentences for Garcia-Rea for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine. The government didn’t abuse its discretion in determining that the government laid sufficient foundation for an officer’s voice identification testimony under Fed. Evid. Rule 901(b)(5). Affirms in all other respects.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Randy Horton v. State of Indiana
48A04-1001-CR-89
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentences for six counts of Class A felony child molesting and three counts of Class C felony child molesting. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a videotaped interview of a child-witness under the recorded recollection exception to the hearsay rule, and his sentence is not inappropriate considering the nature of the offenses and Horton’s character.

Darrian Bunch v. State of Indiana
49A04-1002-CR-120
Criminal. Reverses two of the three convictions of and sentences for criminal confinement against the same victim because they constituted only one distinct confinement and the convictions violate the Indiana Double Jeopardy clause. Remands with instructions that those two convictions and sentences be vacated. Affirms his other convictions and sentences for robbery, burglary, intimidation, criminal confinement pertaining to other victims, and carrying a handgun without a license.

R.A. v. State of Indiana
71A04-1005-JV-340
Juvenile. Reverses order that R.A. be committed to the Indiana Department of Correction given the facts of the case and the statutory policy favoring the least-harsh disposition. Remands with instructions for the juvenile court to vacate its dispositional decree and order his placement in an appropriate rehabilitative setting.

The Village Pines at the Pines of Greenwood Homeowners' Assn. Inc. v. The Pines of Greenwood Homeowners' Assn. Inc.
41A01-0912-CV-568
Civil. Reverses trial court ruling as it erred when it concluded that the controlling ordinances did not require the creation of a master homeowners’ association and for the shared use of amenities located in The Pines development. Remands for the trial court to order the parties to engage in mediation.

Gregory M. Small v. Frank A. Rogers

29A02-1001-PL-30
Civil plenary. Reverses summary judgment in favor of Rogers in his complaint for contribution against Small for the payments of interest under his guaranties that Rogers made to banks. The evidence shows that Rogers paid only a portion of the amounts due under the promissory notes and far less than his proportionate share of the debts owed to the banks, so the right to contribution does not apply in this case.

Marty McConnell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A02-1004-CR-400
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to five counts of Class C felony robbery and one count of Class C felony possession of cocaine.

Anthony J. Woods v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1003-CR-158
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony possession of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a family housing complex.

Curtis E. Cash v. State of Indiana (NFP)
67A05-1005-CR-288
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for Class B felony attempted burglary, Class C felony attempted burglary, and being a habitual offender.

Kyle E. Beals v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1004-CR-453
Criminal. Affirms probation revocation and order Beals serve his previously suspended sentence.

Lisa Burress v. Brad Wells (NFP)
82A01-1003-DR-128
Domestic relation. Affirms modification of primary physical custody in favor of Wells and holding Burress in contempt.

Robert Burch, et al. v. Vern Penner (NFP)
85A04-1003-PL-169
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of the Burches’ motion for relief from judgment.

Tracy Trimble v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1003-CR-163
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony domestic battery and Class D felony strangulation. Remands with instructions to amend the abstract of judgment.

K.W. v. L.W. (NFP)
54A05-1003-DR-181
Domestic relation. Affirms order awarding L.W. primary physical custody of the parties’ minor child.

Michele Michaylo and Paul Michaylo v. Event Experts (NFP)
02A04-1007-SC-432
Small claims. Affirms judgment against Michaylo and in favor of Event Express for $5,800 in a dispute over a corporate sponsorship agreement.

Steve D. Eller v. State of Indiana (NFP)

14A05-0912-PC-690
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Hirman Jackson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1001-CR-85
Criminal. Vacates conviction of and sentence for possession of a schedule I controlled substance as a Class D felony and affirms conviction of and sentence for dealing in a schedule I controlled substance as a Class B felony. Remands for a determination of Jackson’s ability to reimburse the county in part for the costs of his representation.

Jared Beeler v. State of Indiana (NFP)

02A05-1002-CR-153
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class C felony child molesting, Class C felony vicarious sexual gratification, and Class A felony attempted child molesting.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

The Indiana Supreme Court granted one transfer and denied 11 for the week ending Nov. 12.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  2. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  3. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  4. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  5. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

ADVERTISEMENT