ILNews

Opinions Oct. 19, 2012

October 19, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline Friday.

U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana opinions by IL deadline Friday.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Rodney Killebrew II v. State of Indiana

34A02-1204-CR-303
Criminal. Reserves a conviction of possession of marijuana after concluding the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted evidence obtained at an illegal traffic stop. The court found the police officer had no grounds to stop the driver because the continuous use of a turn signal is not a traffic violation and the officer’s actions did not fall within his community caretaking function.  

Alton Neville v. State of Indiana
49A05-1201-CR-9
Criminal. Affirms conviction of murder and carrying a handgun without a license, holding that while there was prosecutorial error that included improperly presenting facts not in evidence and improperly inflaming the passions and prejudices of the jury, the improper comments did not rise to the level of fundamental error.

In Re the Marriage of Yan Wolfman v. Estelle Wolfman (NFP)
45A03-1201-DR-17
Domestic relations/divorce. Remands to the trial court to clarify division of assets.

Jeffery Sanders v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1203-CR-150
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft and adjuctication as a habitual offender.
 
Delareco Pacely v. State of Indiana (NFP)
44A03-1110-CR-488
Criminal. Affirms 18-year sentence for three convictions of Class C felony child molesting.

Albert Harris v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1205-PC-386
Post conviction. Affirms trial court denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Brandon Boles v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1203-CR-226
Criminal. Reverses 10-day sentence for failure to complete community service as a requirement of a sentence for a conviction of public intoxication.

Donzahue Pearson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1202-CR-119
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to dismiss Class D felony charge of sex offender who failed to possess valid identification.  

Dean Eric Blanck v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1204-CR-281
Criminal. Affirms 730-day sentence after a guilty plea to charges of Class D felony resisting law enforcement and Class C misdemeanor operating while intoxicated.

 

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