ILNews

  • Home

Opinions Sept. 28, 2012

September 28, 2012
Keywords
Opinions
Back to TopE-mailPrint

7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no opinions by IL deadline.

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

Indiana Court of Appeals
Steven Duncan v. State of Indiana
82A01-1201-CR-22
Criminal. Affirms in part and reverses in part six convictions of Class A misdemeanor cruelty to an animal. Duncan did not knowingly waive his right to a jury trial because the court did not fully advise him of his rights and obligations. Finds the animal cruelty statute is not vague as applied to him and there was sufficient evidence to overcome a defense of necessity. Remands for a jury trial.

Paul Hardy v. State of Indiana
88A01-1203-CR-93
Criminal. Affirms the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Hardy’s probation in multiple cases and ordering him to serve all of his previously suspended sentences. The trial court had the authority to revoke his probation in two of the cases in which he had not yet begun serving his probation, and he signed an agreement to extend his probation in three other cases beyond the original periods, which allowed the trial court to legally revoke them after the original probation periods were over.

Robert Owen Luetke v. State of Indiana (NFP)
03A01-1202-CR-46
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felony burglary and Class D felony theft.

Paul Sparks v. State of Indiana (NFP)
70A01-1204-CR-140
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class C felony operating a motor vehicle while privileges are forfeited for life.

Matthew Thies v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A01-1111-CR-553
Criminal. Affirms convictions of three counts of Class A felony child molesting and two counts of Class C felony child molesting.

Victor J. DiMaggio, III v. Elias Rosario and Mark Nebel (NFP)
64A04-1204-PL-169
Civil plenary. Affirms dismissal of DiMaggio’s amended complaint against Nebel.

Nathan Haas v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A01-1203-CR-109
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and reinstatement of previously suspended sentence.

Paul Plummer v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1203-CR-106
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy.

Nathan W. Golden v. State of Indiana (NFP)
05A02-1204-CR-345
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class D felony theft.

Robert G. Bollman, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1202-CR-100
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class C felony escape.

Marvin Smith v. City of Richmond and City of Richmond Public Works (NFP)
89A01-1202-CT-45
Civil tort. Affirms grant of summary judgment in favor of the city of Richmond with respect to Smith’s tort claim.

Joy M. Graf v. Craig W. Graf (NFP)
64A03-1206-DR-265
Domestic relation. Reverses denial of Joy Graf’s motion to suspend the driver’s license of Craig Graf due to failure to pay child support. Remands for further proceedings.

State of Indiana v. Jamie Ray Scheckles (NFP)
10A01-1202-CR-71
Criminal. Reverses grant of Scheckles’ motion to enter work release and orders Scheckles return to the Department of Correction.

Michael Sopher v. State of Indiana (NFP)
70A01-1203-CR-133
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class C felony child molesting.

Kevin D. Webster v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1201-PC-86
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Michael S. Scroggins v. State of Indiana (NFP)
39A01-1203-CR-91
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to two counts of Class C felony reckless homicide and one count of Class C felony criminal recklessness.

Curtis Bacon, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1112-CR-1163
Criminal. Affirms convictions and sentence for Class B felony aggravated battery; and Class C felonies criminal recklessness committed while armed with a deadly weapon, and carrying a handgun without a license; and the sentencing enhancement of unlawful use of a firearm.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVANCED SEARCH
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. Judge Roger B. Cosbey is unethical and bias toward African American who seeks justice in Title VII claims. He disrespected and used his authority to attempt to intimidate me into taking an unfair settlement and when I refused he proceeded to get my case dismissed and to deny me my Constitutional and Civil Rights. He disobeying several rules of law; specifically, by ruling on summary judgment motions against the Fed. R. Civ. P., without authority of Judge William C. Lee, without consent of the attorneys, and with conspiracy to commit “fraud on the court,” as he conspired with my former attorney. He proved to me that he is bias, unethical, unfair and unfit to be reappointed. In my opinion, he should be disbarred in 2013, for committing fraud on the court, which would make him ineligible for reinstatement in 2014. See docket 3:07 cv 629 where he rules on dispositive motions, knowing magistrates are not vested with that power (especially without consent), grants the defendant an unconscionable number of extensions, accepts my former attorney request for extension for dispositive motion knowing he was working with the opposition, and unbelievably grants the defendant another extension after he requested an extension after he missed the deadline. I know another attorney filed charges against him for bias in race discrimination case(s). I know what he did in my case before he voluntarily recused himself, I just do not know how many other innocent people have been stripped of their rights because of him. I say shame on him and no more of the same.

  2. they are pushing these cases against lawyers too far. thought-crime.

  3. vagueness cannot challenged, so let's write all laws vaguely and throw the constitution out the window.Even if the court is operating under a particular law, if they don't it they will change it to their liking. What a joke!!!

  4. Two convictions becomes one conviction with exactly the same sentence, only it is not clear wheter or not that sentence will be 18 months, 120 months or 138 months. Actually if the guns were in a home, whether or not they were his, he is protected under the 2nd amendment. Jurors need to learn the law and the constitution before judging others. The cour5ts need to do this as well.

  5. With all due respect, Rick, I think you probably would be making a mistake by going to law school. The job market for attorneys is so saturated, you may well find yourself unemployed and with a lot of debt. You mention law would be a good supplement to your skills. True. But employers unfortunately don't value that. You will find that a law degree may well pigeonhole you into an attorney slot and limit career options. If you have a good job now I would hold onto that. As an attorney, you may well end up making less with the aforementioned debt.

ADVERTISEMENT