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. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  2. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  3. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  4. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  5. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

ADVERTISEMENT