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. 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