ILNews

Opinions Oct. 31, 2012

October 31, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Tax Court opinion was posted after IL deadline Tuesday:
Wendt, LLP v. Indiana Department of State Revenue
02T10-0701-TA-2
Tax. Affirms the department’s determination that the items predominately used by Wendt for estimate preparations, machinery reassembly and lawn care are not entitled to the public transportation exemption. Reverses all of the department’s remaining determinations because those items are necessary and integral to Wendt’s public transportation process. Remands and orders the department to make the necessary determinations in accordance with the opinion.

Wednesday’s opinions
Indiana Court of Appeals
Robertson Fowler v. State of Indiana
49A05-1202-PC-68
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief. Fowler received a benefit at the time he entered into his plea bargain, so he may not now challenge the sentence as illegal.

Larry Michael Caraway v. State of Indiana
47A04-1205-CR-265
Criminal. Affirms sentence for murder following open guilty plea. His sentence is not inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character.

Kevin M. Clark v. State of Indiana
20A05-1202-CR-62
Criminal. Affirms admission of evidence found in his bag and trunk of his car, and the admission of police testimony regarding the conversion of pseudoephedrine to methamphetamine. The police officers had reasonable suspicion to stop the men and because Clark admitted his bag contained marijuana, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting items found in his bag. The police trooper’s testimony regarding conversion was rationally based on her perceptions and was helpful to the determination of facts at issue in the case.

Gaude L. Hughes v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1203-CR-132
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony voluntary manslaughter.

Billy Fox, Jr. v. Rogers Building Ventures, et al. (NFP)
53A05-1203-CP-160
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of objection to personal jurisdiction and the motion to set aside judgment.

Joshua D. Hughes v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1112-PC-591
Post conviction. Affirms denial of Ind. Trial Rule 72(E) request for an extension of time within which to appeal the denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

C.L. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
27A02-1203-JV-232
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication as delinquent for what would be Class C felony battery if committed by an adult.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of D.C.: L.B. (father) v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
82A01-1203-JT-114
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.  

Troy and Mary Hill v. Beta Steel Corporation (NFP)
93A02-1203-EX-215
Agency appeal. Affirms denial of death benefits.

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of A.A.M., and B.J. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
02A03-1201-JT-42
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Lukuman Aderbigbe v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1203-PC-219
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Kenneth W. Gilland v. State of Indiana (NFP)
32A01-1203-CR-143
Criminal. Reverses order that Gilland pay more than $20,000 in restitution. Because Gilland agreed to pay nearly $10,000 in restitution in a plea agreement, he may not challenge the portion that relates to the loss in value of a motorcycle on appeal. Remands with instructions to reduce the restitution order to $9,949.62.

James R. Ferguson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1110-CR-968
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony sexual misconduct with a minor.

Gregory J. Schnelker v. Indiana Department of Insurance Patient's Compensation Authority (NFP)
49A02-1201-CT-33
Civil tort. Affirms order which declined to award Schnelker damages for loss of wages and capacity and for increased risk of future harm.

Timothy A. Stevens v. State of Indiana (NFP)
64A03-1111-PC-525
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Steven Hook, Sr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A04-1204-CR-203
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony battery with a deadly weapon.

Mark Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1201-CR-4
Criminal. Grants rehearing and affirms original opinion in all respects, which affirmed the order Williams serve his entire sentence that was suspended at the time of initial sentencing.

Frederic Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1110-PC-621
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of J.D.: W.H. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
79A02-1203-JT-201
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.
 

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