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

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. 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?

  2. 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.

  3. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  4. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  5. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

ADVERTISEMENT