ILNews

Opinions Nov. 30, 2011

November 30, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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

Indiana Supreme Court
Christopher Jewell v. State of Indiana
32S04-1104-CR-200
Criminal. Affirms denial of Jewell’s motion to suppress recorded phone conversations between him and his former stepdaughter and finds his sentence is appropriate for six counts relating to child molesting, sexual misconduct with a minor, and child seduction. Holds that under the broader protections of Article 1, Section 13 of the Indiana Constitution, the right to counsel is violated only where the different offense is inextricably intertwined with the charge on which counsel is already representing the defendant.

Indiana Court of Appeals
James E. Rogers v. State of Indiana
84A01-1104-CR-148
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class D felony failure to register as a sex or violent offender and sentences for Class D felony theft and receiving stolen property. Rogers waived his ex post facto claim when he entered into the plea agreement. Rogers received a significant benefit from the plea agreement, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to consider the agreement as a mitigating factor.

Matthew A. Knight v. State of Indiana (NFP)
87A01-1103-CR-167
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony operating a vehicle as a habitual traffic violator and Class C infraction no license plate light.

Ronnie Sanchez v. State of Indiana (NFP)
10A01-1101-CR-26
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to suppress.

Jonathan Yocum v. X.Y., By Next Friend, M.Y. (NFP)
49A02-1103-PO-351
Protection order. Reverses protective order against father filed by mother on behalf of their son.

Adolph Brateman, Adrienne Brateman, and Michael Brateman v. Hanning & Bean Enterprises, Inc. (NFP)
02A03-1103-PL-162
Civil plenary. Affirms entry of declaratory judgment and a preliminary injunction in favor of lessee Hanning & Bean Enterprises.

John Barrientes v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A04-1106-CR-302
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to seven charges related to a drunk driving motor vehicle accident that caused the death of one person and seriously injured another.

John A. Ashby v. State of Indiana (NFP)
87A04-1103-CR-113
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to suppress evidence.

Ladell Alexander v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A04-1101-CR-155
Criminal. Dismisses appeal of denial of motion for reduction of sentence.

Cortino Allen v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1103-CR-88
Criminal. Affirms order that Allen undergo a mental health evaluation and comply with any recommended treatment as a part of his probation.

Frank Poole, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1101-CR-12
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to dealing in cocaine as a Class B felony.

Andrew Wagoner v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1105-CR-254
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor battery.

L.G. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1102-JV-181
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication as a delinquent for committing what would be burglary if committed by an adult.

Brian Eby v. Jennifer Eby (NFP)
29A02-1104-DR-318
Domestic relation. Reverses in part second amended decree of dissolution following remand from a previous appeal because the court abused its discretion in crediting Jennifer Eby for the entire amount of expenses paid during the pendency of the dissolution proceedings. Remands with instructions.

Larry W. Pflug, Rebecca K. Pflug, Michael G. Pflug, Kristi A. Pflug, Gene A. Pflug, and Gloria J. Pflug v. State of Indiana (NFP)
26A04-1104-PL-217
Civil plenary. Affirms grant of the state’s motion to strike the exceptions to the assessed value of the property as untimely.

Timothy Tingle v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1104-CR-308
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to three counts of Class A felony dealing in cocaine, and one count each of Class D felony resisting law enforcement and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT