ILNews

Opinions Sept. 28, 2012

September 28, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's an appreciable step taken by the government to curb the child abuse that are happening in the schools. Employees in the schools those are selected without background check can not be trusted. A thorough background check on the teachers or any other other new employees must be performed to choose the best and quality people. Those who are already employed in the past should also be checked for best precaution. The future of kids can be saved through this simple process. However, the checking process should be conducted by the help of a trusted background checking agency(https://www.affordablebackgroundchecks.com/).

  2. Almost everything connects to internet these days. From your computers and Smartphones to wearable gadgets and smart refrigerators in your home, everything is linked to the Internet. Although this convenience empowers usto access our personal devices from anywhere in the world such as an IP camera, it also deprives control of our online privacy. Cyber criminals, hackers, spies and everyone else has realized that we don’t have complete control on who can access our personal data. We have to take steps to to protect it like keeping Senseless password. Dont leave privacy unprotected. Check out this article for more ways: https://www.purevpn.com/blog/data-privacy-in-the-age-of-internet-of-things/

  3. You need to look into Celadon not paying sign on bonuses. We call get the run

  4. My parents took advantage of the fact that I was homeless in 2012 and went to court and got Legal Guardianship I my 2 daughters. I am finally back on my feet and want them back, but now they want to fight me on it. I want to raise my children and have them almost all the time on the weekends. Mynparents are both almost 70 years old and they play favorites which bothers me a lot. Do I have a leg to stand on if I go to court to terminate lehal guardianship? My kids want to live with me and I want to raise them, this was supposed to be temporary, and now it is turning into a fight. Ridiculous

  5. Here's my two cents. While in Texas in 2007 I was not registered because I only had to do it for ten years. So imagine my surprise as I find myself forced to register in Texas because indiana can't get their head out of their butt long enough to realize they passed an ex post facto law in 2006. So because Indiana had me listed as a failure to register Texas said I had to do it there. Now if Indiana had done right by me all along I wouldn't need the aclu to defend my rights. But such is life.

ADVERTISEMENT