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. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  2. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  3. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  4. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  5. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

ADVERTISEMENT