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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT