ILNews

Opinions Sept. 17, 2012

September 17, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Fred E. Dowell v. United States of America
10-2912
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Evansville Division, Chief Judge Richard L. Young.
Civil. Remands with instructions for the District Court to make a determination as to whether Dowell told his attorney to file an appeal to contest whether he was a career offender. Dowell claimed his plea agreement specifically reserved his right to appeal the career offender designation, but his attorney did not file the appeal.

Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Todd J. Posar v. Paula M. Posar (NFP)
71A04-1201-DR-38
Domestic relation. Reverses order granting Paula Posar’s Trial Rule 60(B) motion for relief from judgment pertaining to an order establishing Todd Posar’s college expense arrearage as of that date. Remands with instructions.

Sarah L. Thompson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A04-1204-CR-176
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony battery.

Kyle Lynch v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1112-CR-1175
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class A felony child molesting.

Cory J. Pinkerton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
35A02-1202-CR-94
Criminal. Affirms five-year sentence enhancement imposed under I.C. 35-50-2-11 subsequent to Pinkerton’s conviction of Class C felony reckless homicide.

Jason Middleton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
70A01-1202-CR-69
Criminal. Affirms convictions and sentence for Class D felony possession of methamphetamine and Class A misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia.

Geramy Ridley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1202-CR-89
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class B felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon.

Kent A. Easley v. Indiana Dept. of Correction, et al. (NFP)
49A02-1202-PL-220
Civil plenary. Affirms dismissal of lawsuit.

Rolando Miguel-Gaspar Mateo v. State of Indiana (NFP)
09A04-1201-CR-17
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class B felony aggravated battery.

Perry Odum v. State of Indiana (NFP)
30A01-1203-CR-102
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felony burglary and Class D felony theft.
 

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