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. 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?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT