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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Uh oh, someone is really going to get their panti ... uh, um ... I mean get upset now: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/31/arkansas-passes-indiana-style-religious-freedom-bill

  2. Bryan, stop insulting the Swedes by comparing them to the American oligarchs. Otherwise your point is well taken.

  3. Sociologist of religion Peter Berger once said that the US is a “nation of Indians ruled by Swedes.” He meant an irreligious elite ruling a religious people, as that Sweden is the world’s least religious country and India the most religious. The idea is that American social elites tend to be much less religious than just about everyone else in the country. If this is true, it helps explain the controversy raking Indiana over Hollywood, San Fran, NYC, academia and downtown Indy hot coals. Nevermind logic, nevermind it is just the 1993 fed bill did, forget the Founders, abandon of historic dedication to religious liberty. The Swedes rule. You cannot argue with elitists. They have the power, they will use the power, sit down and shut up or feel the power. I know firsthand, having been dealt blows from the elite's high and mighty hands often as a mere religious plebe.

  4. I need helping gaining custody of my 5 and 1 year old from my alcoholic girlfriend. This should be an easy case for any lawyer to win... I've just never had the courage to take her that far. She has a record of public intox and other things. She has no job and no where to live othe than with me. But after 5 years of trying to help her with her bad habit, she has put our kids in danger by driving after drinking with them... She got detained yesterday and the police chief released my kids to me from the police station. I live paycheck to paycheck and Im under alot of stress dealing with this situation. Can anyone please help?

  5. The more a state tries to force people to associate, who don't like each other and simply want to lead separate lives, the more that state invalidates itself....... This conflict has shown clearly that the advocates of "tolerance" are themselves intolerant, the advocates of "diversity" intend to inflict themselves on an unwilling majority by force if necessary, until that people complies and relents and allows itself to be made homogenous with the politically correct preferences of the diversity-lobbies. Let's clearly understand, this is force versus force and democracy has nothing to do with this. Democracy is a false god in the first place, even if it is a valid ideal for politics, but it is becoming ever more just an empty slogan that just suckers a bunch of cattle into paying their taxes and volunteering for stupid wars.

ADVERTISEMENT