ILNews

Opinions Nov. 2, 2012

November 2, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Joshua A. Bostic v. State of Indiana
12A02-1202-CR-154
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Cass C felony attempted battery by means of a deadly weapon and criminal recklessness; Class D felony arson; Class A misdemeanor criminal mischief; and Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief, holding that Bostic waived his right to appeal under Criminal Rule 4(C) by failing to object to trial delays before the trial court. The court also found he likewise waived his right to appeal the process for appointing a special judge. Remands to the trial court to correct the sentencing order, abstract of judgment, and chronological case summary to reflect that Bostic’s 12-year habitual offender enhancement is an enhancement to his sentence for felony criminal recklessness, and not a separate conviction.

Curtis M. Howard v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1205-CR-410
Criminal. Affirms revocation of community corrections.

Dennis Leer v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A04-1204-PC-185
Criminal. Reverses and remands denial of a petition for post-conviction relief, ordering the trial court to correct his sentence to reflect that the sentence for murder is to be served concurrently with an earlier sentence for attempted murder.

In Re The Visitation of M.J. and J.J.: C.M. v. J.J. and I.J. (NFP)
71A03-1205-JM-220
Domestic relation. Affirms granting of visitation with her two minor children, M.J. and J.J., to the children’s paternal grandparents, Jo.J. and I.J.

Kirk Lynch v. State of Indiana (NFP)
40A05-1201-CR-26
Criminal. Affirms in a split decision a conviction for Class A felony attempted child molesting, and vacating the conviction for Class C felony child solicitation, and revises Lynch’s sentence from 40 years with five suspended to probation to 25 years imprisonment with five years suspended to probation. The majority determined the child solicitation count constituted double jeopardy. Judge Terry Crone agreed, but said Lynch’s 40-year sentence was not inappropriate based on the nature of his offense and Lynch’s character.
 
Indiana Tax Court
Carolyn Gibson v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue (NFP)
49T10-1204-TA-20
Affirms denial of refund claim.
 

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT