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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT