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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT