Opinions Nov. 6, 2013

November 6, 2013
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Kimberly Kubina v. State of Indiana
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony burglary and Class C felony robbery.

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

John Garbacz v. State of Indiana (NFP)
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.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?