Opinions Oct. 5, 2011

October 5, 2011
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

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
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
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)
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)

Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to three counts of Class B felony burglary.

Myia Relphorde v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony conspiracy to commit robbery.

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

Christopher West v. Eileen Mary Flaherty (NFP)
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)
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)
Miscellaneous. Affirms denial of motion to correct error.

Frederick Hampton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms imposition of a $100 public defender fee.

Delbert R. Majors v. State of Indiana (NFP)
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)
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)
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  2. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  3. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.

  4. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well

  5. Sex offenders are victims twice, once when they are molested as kids, and again when they repeat the behavior, you never see money spent on helping them do you. That's why this circle continues