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. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  3. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  4. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  5. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

ADVERTISEMENT