ILNews

Opinions Oct. 4, 2013

October 4, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Opinions Oct. 4, 2013

Indiana Court of Appeals
Dexter Berry v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A04-1301-CR-34
Post conviction. Remands for recalculation of pretrial credit time applied against an executed 10-year sentence for conviction of Class B felony burglary.

Johnny Henderson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1302-CR-178
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony attempted burglary.

Howell Contractors, Inc. and Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland v. Calumet Civil Contractors, Inc. (NFP)
49A05-1305-PL-232
Civil plenary. Affirms grant of summary judgment as to liability, reverses entry of summary judgment on damages and remands for proceedings.

Thomas Roberts v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1304-CR-356
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to modify 55-year sentence for conviction of murder.

Mark Gregory v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1302-PC-198
Post-conviction. Affirms denial of post-convcition relief from a 55-year executed sentence for conviction of multiple counts of burglary and theft reimposed after a violation of probation under a previously granted sentence modification.

David Kifer v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A05-1302-IF-53
Infraction. Affirms Class C infraction for disregarding an automatic signal.

Victor Gutierrez v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A04-1302-CR-63
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Robert J. Fiedler and Dianne C. Fiedler v. LaGrange County Health Department (NFP)
44A03-1303-MI-107
Miscellaneous. Affirms trial court’s entry of final judgment in favor of the LaGrange County Health Department on an action to compel the department to certify a septic system was functioning satisfactorily.

Jose Contreras v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1303-CR-112
Criminal. Affirms 20-year executed sentence for conviction of Class A felony dealing in methamphetamine, Class C felony possession of narcotic drug and a firearm, and Class D felony possession of marijuana.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court issued no opinions by IL deadline Friday. U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana opinions by IL deadline Friday.

 

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