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. If real money was spent on this study, what a shame. And if some air-head professor tries to use this to advance a career, pity the poor student. I am approaching a time that i (and others around me) should be vigilant. I don't think I'm anywhere near there yet, but seeing the subject I was looking forward to something I might use to look for some benchmarks. When finally finding my way to the hidden questionnaire all I could say to myself was...what a joke. Those are open and obvious signs of any impaired lawyer (or non-lawyer, for that matter), And if one needs a checklist to discern those tell-tale signs of impairment at any age, one shouldn't be practicing law. Another reason I don't regret dropping my ABA membership some number of years ago.

  2. The case should have been spiked. Give the kid a break. He can serve and maybe die for Uncle Sam and can't have a drink? Wow. And they won't even let him defend himself. What a gross lack of prosecutorial oversight and judgment. WOW

  3. I work with some older lawyers in the 70s, 80s, and they are sharp as tacks compared to the foggy minded, undisciplined, inexperienced, listless & aimless "youths" being churned out by the diploma mill law schools by the tens of thousands. A client is generally lucky to land a lawyer who has decided to stay in practice a long time. Young people shouldn't kid themselves. Experience is golden especially in something like law. When you start out as a new lawyer you are about as powerful as a babe in the cradle. Whereas the silver halo of age usually crowns someone who can strike like thunder.

  4. YES I WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION WITH MY YOUNGEST SON PEOPLE NEED TO LEAVE US ALONE WITH DCS IF WE ARE NOT HURTING OR NEGLECT OUR CHILDREN WHY ARE THEY EVEN CALLED OUT AND THE PEOPLE MAKING FALSE REPORTS NEED TO GO TO JAIL AND HAVE A CLASS D FELONY ON THERE RECORD TO SEE HOW IT FEELS. I WENT THREW ALOT WHEN HE WAS TAKEN WHAT ELSE DOES THESE SCHOOL WANT ME TO SERVE 25 YEARS TO LIFE ON LIES THERE TELLING OR EVEN LE SAME THING LIED TO THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR JUST SO I WOULD GET ARRESTED AND GET TIME HE THOUGHT AND IT TURNED OUT I DID WHAT I HAD TO DO NOT PROUD OF WHAT HAPPEN AND SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SEEKING MEDICAL ATTENTION FOR MY CHILD I AM DISABLED AND SICK OF GETTING TREATED BADLY HOW WOULD THEY LIKE IT IF I CALLED APS ON THEM FOR A CHANGE THEN THEY CAN COME AND ARREST THEM RIGHT OUT OF THE SCHOOL. NOW WE ARE HOMELESS AND THE CHILDREN ARE STAYING WITH A RELATIVE AND GUARDIAN AND THE SCHOOL WON'T LET THEM GO TO SCHOOL THERE BUT WANT THEM TO GO TO SCHOOL WHERE BULLYING IS ALLOWED REAL SMART THINKING ON A SCHOOL STAFF.

  5. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

ADVERTISEMENT