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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  2. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  3. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  4. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  5. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

ADVERTISEMENT