ILNews

Opinions Nov. 6, 2013

November 6, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Kimberly Kubina v. State of Indiana
45A03-1303-CR-100
Criminal. Affirms 35-year sentence following guilty plea to Class A felony neglect of a dependent. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding Kubina was in a position of trust with her stepson.

Christopher Cross v. State of Indiana
73A01-1303-CR-134
Criminal. Cross’s sentence for carrying a handgun without a license and the sentence enhancement for using said handgun during the commission of the act of dealing in cocaine did not violate the prohibitions against double jeopardy. Vacates conviction of Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license because it is a lesser-included offense of the Class C felony conviction carrying a handgun without a license. Remands with instructions to vacate the misdemeanor conviction.

Keianna Rae Harrison v. Cynthia L. Wells (NFP)
49A02-1303-CC-265
Civil collection. Dismisses appeal of the denial of Harrison’s Trial Rule 60(B) motion for relief from a default judgment entered in favor of Wells.

Joshua Doan v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1302-CR-90
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony burglary but reverses determination Doan is a habitual offender as he did not intelligently waive his jury-trial rights for the habitual-offender charge. Remands for a jury trial or bench trial on this count.

Curtis McGrone v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1304-CR-347
Criminal. Affirms 40-year aggregate sentence for Class B felony robbery and two counts of Class B felony criminal confinement.

Cleve Stone v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1303-CR-102
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony burglary and Class C felony robbery.

Dexter Stacy, Sr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
76A04-1303-CR-113
Criminal. Affirms 75-year aggregate sentence for two counts of Class A felony child molesting.

John Garbacz v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1303-CR-87
Criminal. Reverses denial of motion to discharge and remands with instructions for the court to grant Garbacz’s motion.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana opinions by 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. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT