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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT