Opinions Nov. 2, 2012

November 2, 2012
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Joshua A. Bostic v. State of Indiana
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)
Criminal. Affirms revocation of community corrections.

Dennis Leer v. State of Indiana (NFP)
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)
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)
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)
Affirms denial of refund claim.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  2. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  3. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise

  4. I have a degree at law, recent MS in regulatory studies. Licensed in KS, admitted b4 S& 7th circuit, but not to Indiana bar due to political correctness. Blacklisted, nearly unemployable due to hostile state action. Big Idea: Headwinds can overcome, esp for those not within the contours of the bell curve, the Lego Movie happiness set forth above. That said, even without the blacklisting for holding ideas unacceptable to the Glorious State, I think the idea presented above that a law degree open many vistas other than being a galley slave to elitist lawyers is pretty much laughable. (Did the law professors of Indiana pay for this to be published?)

  5. Joe, you might want to do some reading on the fate of Hoosier whistleblowers before you get your expectations raised up.