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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT