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. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  2. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

  3. This law is troubling in two respects: First, why wasn't the law reviewed "with the intention of getting all the facts surrounding the legislation and its actual impact on the marketplace" BEFORE it was passed and signed? Seems a bit backwards to me (even acknowledging that this is the Indiana state legislature we're talking about. Second, what is it with the laws in this state that seem to create artificial monopolies in various industries? Besides this one, the other law that comes to mind is the legislation that governed the granting of licenses to firms that wanted to set up craft distilleries. The licensing was limited to only those entities that were already in the craft beer brewing business. Republicans in this state talk a big game when it comes to being "business friendly". They're friendly alright . . . to certain businesses.

  4. Gretchen, Asia, Roberto, Tonia, Shannon, Cheri, Nicholas, Sondra, Carey, Laura ... my heart breaks for you, reaching out in a forum in which you are ignored by a professional suffering through both compassion fatigue and the love of filthy lucre. Most if not all of you seek a warm blooded Hoosier attorney unafraid to take on the government and plead that government officials have acted unconstitutionally to try to save a family and/or rescue children in need and/or press individual rights against the Leviathan state. I know an attorney from Kansas who has taken such cases across the country, arguing before half of the federal courts of appeal and presenting cases to the US S.Ct. numerous times seeking cert. Unfortunately, due to his zeal for the constitutional rights of peasants and willingness to confront powerful government bureaucrats seemingly violating the same ... he was denied character and fitness certification to join the Indiana bar, even after he was cleared to sit for, and passed, both the bar exam and ethics exam. And was even admitted to the Indiana federal bar! NOW KNOW THIS .... you will face headwinds and difficulties in locating a zealously motivated Hoosier attorney to face off against powerful government agents who violate the constitution, for those who do so tend to end up as marginalized as Paul Odgen, who was driven from the profession. So beware, many are mere expensive lapdogs, the kind of breed who will gladly take a large retainer, but then fail to press against the status quo and powers that be when told to heel to. It is a common belief among some in Indiana that those attorneys who truly fight the power and rigorously confront corruption often end up, actually or metaphorically, in real life or at least as to their careers, as dead as the late, great Gary Welch. All of that said, I wish you the very best in finding a Hoosier attorney with a fighting spirit to press your rights as far as you can, for you do have rights against government actors, no matter what said actors may tell you otherwise. Attorneys outside the elitist camp are often better fighters that those owing the powers that be for their salaries, corner offices and end of year bonuses. So do not be afraid to retain a green horn or unconnected lawyer, many of them are fine men and woman who are yet untainted by the "unique" Hoosier system.

  5. I am not the John below. He is a journalist and talk show host who knows me through my years working in Kansas government. I did no ask John to post the note below ...

ADVERTISEMENT