ILNews

Opinions Oct. 24, 2011

October 24, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals had posted no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.


Indiana Court of Appeals
Gerald Broude v. State of Indiana
75A03-1101-CR-37
Criminal. Affirms convictions of one count of Class A and one count of Class C felony child molesting, holding sufficient evidence exists to support the convictions and that Broude had adequate time to prepare for victim’s closed-circuit testimony. Reverses one count of Class A felony child molesting, holding that a material variance existed between the charging information and evidence presented at trial. Remands to the trial court to vacate that conviction.

Christopher Allen Buchanan v. State of Indiana
82A01-1103-CR-139
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class B felony child molesting, holding that trial court did not err in calculating the amount of credit time to which Buchanan was entitled and did not err in finding the age of the victim as an aggravator.

State of Indiana v. Skylor Gearlds
90A02-1105-CR-433
Criminal. Reverses trial court’s dismissal of Class A misdemeanor operating a motor vehicle while suspended based on a previous violation within the past 10 years, pursuant to Indiana Code 9-24-19-2. Holds that while the statute contains an inaccuracy, it is clear what the Legislature’s intent was in drafting the law.

Ken Gunn v. State of Indiana
49A02-1102-CR-82
Criminal. Reverses charge of Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license, holding the evidence was obtained as the result of an unlawful traffic stop.

Steven Nowling v. State of Indiana
31A01-1010-CR-552
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony possession of methamphetamine, holding that while a third party did not expressly consent to a search of Nowling’s room, the evidence found in that search was harmless, as it was Nowling’s testimony under oath that affirmed his possession of methamphetamine.

Isaiah Wheeler v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1103-CR-109
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony carrying a handgun without a license.

In Re: The Matter of A.G. and A.M.; A.M. v. Allen County Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
02A04-1104-JC-180
Juvenile. Affirms judgment of trial court that son was a Child in Need of Services.

Mark Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1101-CR-50
Criminal. Reverses trial court’s revocation of probation.

Melvin Hall v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1104-CR-190
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony robbery and Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license.

John Shelton v. Daniel Keith Hoffman, Guardian of the Estate of Molly Dattilo (NFP)
49A05-1009-CT-606
Civil tort. Affirms trial court’s default judgment against Shelton.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of A.W.; T.H. and D.W. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
18A02-1102-JT-161
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights of mother and father.

Cecil Dowell Freeman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
42A01-1102-CR-102
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle with an alcohol concentration of at least 0.15 gram of alcohol.

Ryan Grosswiler v. State of Indiana (NFP)
27A02-1103-CR-228
Criminal. Affirms convictions of three counts of Class C felony child molesting and one count of Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy.

Jason Hough v. State of Indiana (NFP)
38A04-1102-CR-110
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felony burglary and Class D felony theft.

Sajjad Quayim Rasheed v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1103-PC-131
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Zane Padgett v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1104-PC-170
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Cynthia L. Ragsdale v. State of Indiana (NFP)
10A01-1012-CR-637
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class D felony possession of cocaine.

Jack M. Estes II v. State of Indiana (NFP)
32A01-1010-CR-576
Criminal. Dismisses appeal, holding that according to the Indiana Supreme Court, a sanction imposed when probation is revoked does not qualify as a sentence, and that accordingly, Estes cannot appeal his sanction.

Shammy Wingo v. State of Indiana (NFP)
27A02-1103-CR-226
Criminal. Affirms jury’s determination that Wingo committed Class A misdemeanor driving while suspended, Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement and associated infractions.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at 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. 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!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT