ILNews

Opinions Sept. 25, 2012

September 25, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Charles Hall v. State of Indiana
13A04-1111-CR-622
Criminal. Affirms conviction and aggregate 24-year sentence for convictions of dealing in methamphetamine, possession of precursors, operating a vehicle after a lifetime suspension, and resisting law enforcement. The court held that a search of the vehicle that Hall fled after leading police on a chase did not implicate the Fourth Amendment and that the sentence was not inappropriate given Hall’s dangerous conduct and long record of driving and drug convictions.

Ray Evans v. Eric L. Thomas
73A04-1112-PO-670
Protective order. Affirms trial court issuance of a protective order against Evans, concluding that the seriousness of the allegations against him warranted swift judicial action, that Evans was not denied an opportunity to retain counsel, and that denial of his request for a continuance was not an abuse of discretion.

R.W. v. State of Indiana
49A02-1112-JV-1187
Juvenile. Reverses a true finding of attempted burglary, a Class B felony, on grounds that the admission of a videotaped confession constituted a fundamental error. Also remanded with instructions for a true finding of criminal mischief, a Class B misdemeanor.

Holly Horst (Greczek) v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1202-CR-62
Criminal. Affirms sentence for conviction of Class C felony fraud on a financial institution.

Scott Wayne Steele v. State of Indiana (NFP)
36A01-1112-CR-608
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation. http://media.ibj.com/Lawyer/websites/opinions/index.php?pdf=2012/september/09251209pdm.pdf

Cary L. Patrick v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1109-PC-413
Post-conviction relief. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief on four counts of Class A felony attempted murder and one count of Class B felony arson.

Daniel E. Stuckman, Sr. and Daniel E. Stuckman, Jr. v. Kosciusko County Board of Zoning Appeals and the Estate of Gary Stuckman (NFP)
43A03-1202-MI-69
Miscellaneous/zoning. Affirms trial court judgment in favor of the defendants.

Wesley Hood, Sr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1201-CR-30
Criminal. Affirms revocation of placement in home detention.

Matt B. Helmen, M.D. v. Mary and Ronald McDaniel, Individually and as Administrators of the Estate of Christopher L. McDaniel, Deceased, and Phillip Lam, M.D. (NFP)
49A02-1204-CT-327
Civil tort/medical malpractice. Affirms trial court’s denial of motion for change of venue.

M.M. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1203-JV-102
Juvenile. Affirms finding that M.M. committed what would have been Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana if committed by an adult.


 

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. 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?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT