ILNews

Opinions Oct. 28, 2010

October 28, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Robert D. Davis v. State of Indiana
32A01-1003-CR-144
Criminal. Affirms denial of Davis’ motion for leave to amend his motion to correct erroneous sentence. The information before the appellate court doesn’t allow it to decide whether he was erroneously sentenced.  

Quincy and Shannon Branham v. Rodney Varble and Norman Chastain
62A01-1004-SC-192
Small claims. Affirms order the Branhams pay $50 a month toward a small-claims judgment. The burden is upon the debtor to assert an exemption. Reverses the part of the court’s order that Quincy seek alternative employment by submitting five applications a week. There’s no court authority that supports this order. Judge Crone dissents in part.

Quincy and Shannon Branham v. Rodney and Carol Varble
62A04-1004-SC-256
Small claims. Affirms order the Branhams pay $50 a month toward a small claims judgment. Based on the evidence before the court, it concluded that exemptions aside, they had sufficient funds to pay the judgment. Reverses the part of the court’s order that Quincy seek alternative employment by submitting five applications a week. There’s no court authority that supports this order. Judge Crone dissents in part.

Kelvin Heyen v. State of Indiana
84A04-1002-CR-134
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine and being a habitual offender. Heyen’s claim the evidence was stale fails; he didn’t show that the confidential informant’s identity was unknown to him, the evidence is sufficient to show he dealt methamphetamine and that he is an habitual offender, and his trial counsel didn’t render ineffective assistance.

Marvin G. Jerro v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1001-CR-38
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class A felony dealing in cocaine, one count of Class C felony possession of cocaine, and finding Jerro is a habitual offender.

Donald A. Pierce v. State of Indiana (NFP)
13A04-0908-CR-480
Criminal. Affirms convictions of three counts of Class A felony child molesting and one count of Class C felony child molesting. Remands with instructions to attach Pierce’s fixed 10-year term for being a repeat sexual offender to one of his Class A felony sentences for an aggregate sentence of 134 years.

Dion Alexander Walker v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1005-PC-250
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Richard D. Stewart v. State of Indiana (NFP)

42A05-0912-CR-705
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine, Class D felony possession of methamphetamine, and Class D felony maintaining a common nuisance.

Joseph Hoskins v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1004-CR-524
Criminal. Affirms conviction of possession of marijuana as a Class A misdemeanor.

Micah Potter v. State of Indiana (NFP)
89A05-1006-CR-391
Criminal. Affirms execution of Potter’s previously suspended sentence upon the revocation of her probation.

Paternity of C.W.R.; C.W. v. F.R. (NFP)
31A01-1002-JP-47
Juvenile. Affirms order denying mother C.W.’s petition to modify custody of C.W.R.

Samuel Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1003-CR-171
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class A felony rape, Class A felony criminal deviate conduct, Class B felony robbery, and Class C felony intimidation.

Donald K. Wilburn v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1001-CR-24
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony rape and Class B felony criminal deviate conduct.

Anthony R. Helton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1002-CR-183
Criminal. Affirms convictions of eight counts of Class D felony theft.

Martin A. Stanley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1003-CR-209
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony arson.

William Greenwood v. State of Indiana (NFP)
43A03-1005-CR-322
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class C felonies child molesting and child exploitation and remands for correction of clerical errors.

Antoine R. Bird v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1003-CR-170
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony robbery and felony murder.

Clarence Davis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A04-1003-CR-273
Criminal. Affirms six-year sentence imposed following probation violation.

Randy A. Cummings v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A04-1001-CR-32
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony attempted murder.

Walter Archer, III v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1001-CR-32
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felony carrying a handgun without a license.

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's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT