ILNews

Opinions Oct. 27, 2011

October 27, 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
Joey Jennings v. State of Indiana
53A01-1010-CR-541
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief. The state presented sufficient evidence to prove that he was the person who damaged another man’s truck. Reverses his sentence of 360 days probation in addition to 180 days in prison with 150 suspended. Jennings’ term of imprisonment for the purposes of Indiana Code 35-50-3-1(b) includes not only the 30-day executed portion, but also the suspended term. The trial court sentence caused him to serve more than a year of combined imprisonment and probation, which violates the statute. Remands for the trial court to recalculate his probation, not to exceed 185 days.

Martin Montgomery v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1009-CR-484
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class B felony criminal deviate conduct.

George Hill v. State of Indiana (NFP)
31A04-1103-PC-163
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of Bn.Z. and Ba.Z.; and B.Z. and V.C. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
20A03-1102-JT-93
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights of mother and father.

T.H. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
93A02-1011-EX-1318
Agency appeal. Affirms decision that T.H. is ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of Z.Z.N., and L.O.O. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
02A04-1101-JT-33
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Abraham Alvarez v. State of Indiana (NFP)
44A03-1104-CR-169
Criminal. Affirms order Alvarez serve his sentence in the Department of Correction.

Laveda Drew v. Jim Galloway (NFP)
82A01-1106-CT-282
Civil tort. Affirms denial of Drew’s denominated “motion for relief from order” following the denial of her information for contempt.

Ernest Davis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1102-CR-62
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for murder and Class C felony attempted robbery.

William Hinesley, III v. State of Indiana (NFP)
55A04-1102-CR-90
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony child molesting.

Leroy Arrington v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1103-CR-132
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony dealing in cocaine.

Ted Parker v. Randall J. Bonewitz and Russell Todd Dellinger (NFP)
85A02-1103-PL-293
Civil plenary. Affirms award of damages to Bonewitz and Dellinger on their nuisance action against Parker.

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