ILNews

Opinions Sept. 22, 2011

September 22, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit had posted no opinions from Indiana courts at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
An-Hung Yao and Yu-Ting Lin v. State of Indiana
35A02-1006-CR-678
Criminal. Affirms order dismissing the Class D felony counterfeiting charges against Yao and Lin and reverses the denial of their motion to dismiss counts of Class D felony theft and Class C felony corrupt business influence. The trial court lacked territorial jurisdiction because there is no evidence any conduct that is an element of the alleged offenses occurred in Indiana. Remands for the trial court to dismiss the remaining charges.

Heather Zion v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1103-CR-176
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class C felony robbery, Class C felony forgery, and Class D felony fraud.

In the Matter of Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of M.G., M.G., E.G.; M.G. v. The Indiana Dept. for Child Svcs. (NFP)

49A05-1101-JT-23
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

D.M. v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A02-1102-JV-216
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication as a delinquent child for committing what would be Class B felony robbery and Class A misdemeanor dangerous possession of a firearm if committed by an adult.

Donald R. Bloss v. State of Indiana (NFP)

20A03-1102-MI-60
Miscellaneous. Affirms determination that Bloss is a habitual traffic violator.

Quanardel Wells v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1012-CR-731
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to sever the offenses for separate trials with respect to each victim.

Carol Curran v. Rhonda Curran-Wert (NFP)

30A04-1101-GU-19
Guardianship. Affirms order terminating Carol Curran’s guardianship of Rhonda Curran-Wert.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  2. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  3. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  4. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  5. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

ADVERTISEMENT