ILNews

Opinions Nov. 28, 2011

November 28, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals had posted no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.


Indiana Court of Appeals
Jennings Daugherty v. State of Indiana
89A05-1103-CR-131
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony possession of cocaine and Class D felony maintaining a common nuisance. Daugherty’s arguments on appeal are insufficient to demonstrate reversible error. Affirms the admission of the state’s evidence.

Manuel Trujillo v. State of Indiana
71A03-1102-PC-73
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petitions for post-conviction relief, in which Trujillo challenged two separate convictions under separate cause numbers for conspiracy to deal marijuana. Trujillo can’t establish that he was prejudiced by his counsel’s failure to advise him that the 1999 and 2008 prosecutions may impact his immigration status. The trial courts in the two cases also did not violate Indiana Code 35-35-1-2 in accepting Trujillo’s guilty pleas.

Eric Stickdorn and Lisa Stickdorn v. Elam B. Zook, Sarah F. Zook, Samuel L. Lantz and Mattie Z. Lantz
89A01-1012-CT-670
Civil tort. Affirms determination that the Stickdorns’ personal injury claims against the Lantzes and the negligence claims are barred by the two-year statute of limitations. By 2005, the Stickdorns’ complaint for personal injury had accrued and were ascertainable, but the complaint was not filed until November 2009. Reverses grant of summary judgment for the Lantzes with regards to the nuisance and trespass claims and remands for further proceedings. The designated evidence establishes that the Lantzes refused to stop or change their waste storage, disposal and management practices that harmed the Stickdorns through April 2005. The statute of limitations did not preclude the Stickdorns from complaining about the continued instances of nuisance and trespass.

Marsean Shines v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A05-1105-CR-237
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class D felony domestic battery, Class D felony criminal confinement, Class B misdemeanor false informing, and Shines’ habitual offender enhancement.

James C. Lewis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1103-CR-178
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and imposition of the previously suspended portion of Lewis’ sentence.

Richard Edward Hughes v. State of Indiana (NFP)
10A01-1103-CR-165
Criminal. Reverses in part Hughes' convictions of Class C felony battery with a deadly weapon and Class D felony criminal recklessness and orders the trial court to vacate the conviction of and sentence for criminal recklessness.

Aaron Spears v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A05-1104-CR-204
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony neglect of a dependent resulting in death.

David Rippe v. Edward C. Levy Company (NFP)
45A03-1102-CT-30
Civil tort.  Affirms jury verdict in favor of Edward C. Levy Co. that found Levy not liable for the injuries Rippe sustained while an employee of an independent contractor at a Levy site.

Angela Townsell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1104-CR-343
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A misdemeanors intimidation and battery.

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of Z.S.; C.S. and L.S. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
67A01-1104-JT-193
Juvenile. Affirms termination of father’s parental rights.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of G.B. and J.N.; E.B. (mother) and A.N. (father) v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
79A02-1104-JT-315
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Donald L. Pruitt v. State of Indiana (NFP)
55A01-1105-CR-218
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony operating a motor vehicle after forfeiture of license for life.

Daniel Walton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
57A03-1105-CR-198
Criminal. Affirms two convictions of Class A felony dealing in methamphetamine.

Brian K. Brantley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A02-1102-CR-158
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class B felony criminal deviate conduct, Class C felony battery, two counts of Class D felony intimidation, and battery as a Class A misdemeanor and Class B misdemeanor.

Jasper Frazier v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1101-CR-126
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class A felony attempted robbery, Class B felony conspiracy to commit robbery, and Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

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