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

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. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  2. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  3. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  4. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  5. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

ADVERTISEMENT