ILNews

Opinions Oct. 5, 2011

October 5, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
P.J. v. State of Indiana

49A05-1102-JV-121
Juvenile. Affirms restitution order following adjudication, after a guilty plea, as a delinquent child for committing what would be Class B felony burglary if committed by an adult. P.J. waived his right to have the juvenile court inquire into his ability to pay, as he has acknowledged such ability in his plea agreement.

State of Indiana v. Gordon V. Vankirk
29A02-1012-CR-1418
Criminal. Affirms trial court finding Vankirk not guilty of operating a motor vehicle while privileges are forfeited for life as a Class C felony. Entering a judgment of conviction for a Class A misdemeanor pursuant to Indiana Code 35-38-1-1.5 for an offense under I.C. 9-30-10-16 removes the lifetime forfeiture of a defendant’s driving privileges.

David Robinson v. State of Indiana
49A02-1101-CR-13
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation. The trial court erred in admitting an affidavit prepared by a detective based on information another police officer told him regarding a domestic dispute between Robinson and his girlfriend. The state presented and the trial court found there were additional factors warranting revocation of Robinson’s probation.

Howard Steele v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1102-CR-157
Criminal. Reverses post-conviction court’s summary denial of petition for education credit time for a high school diploma earned from an unaccredited school. Remands for a hearing.

Jyshawn D. Moore v. State of Indiana (NFP)

71A03-1102-CR-115
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to three counts of Class B felony burglary.

Myia Relphorde v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1103-CR-91
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony conspiracy to commit robbery.

Raymond Cox, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
73A04-1101-CR-116
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to possession of marijuana as a Class D felony.

Christopher West v. Eileen Mary Flaherty (NFP)
49A04-1012-CC-747
Civil collection. Affirms denial of West’s motion to declare a California judgment void and to vacate an agreed judgment.

In Re: The Unsupervised Administration of the Estate of Ozella T. Schlosser, deceased (NFP)
30A01-1106-EU-226
Estate, unsupervised. Dismisses William Schlosser’s appeal of the denial of his petition to reopen the estate of his mother.

Daniel J. Hollen v. State of Indiana (NFP)
42A01-1105-MI-206
Miscellaneous. Affirms denial of motion to correct error.

Frederick Hampton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1103-CR-258
Criminal. Affirms imposition of a $100 public defender fee.

Delbert R. Majors v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1012-CR-660
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class B felony causing death when operating a motor vehicle with a schedule II controlled substance in the blood.

In Re: The Marriage of Dorothy Borgan v. Terry R. Borgan, Sr. (NFP)
49A04-1012-DR-785
Domestic relation. Reverses order as it pertains to modification of the wife’s portion of the husband’s monthly retirement payment and instructs the trial court, if necessary, to have a new qualified domestic relations order entered which reflects this decision. Affirms denial of wife’s contempt and attorney fees petition.

Term. of Parent-Child of T.S.; A.R. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
71A03-1104-JT-210
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

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 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