ILNews

Supreme Court denies transfer to four

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court denied transfer in four cases June 3. As of today’s Indiana Lawyer daily deadline, the court had not yet posted transfers since those from the week ending June 4.

The court denied transfer to the following cases:

James Henley v. State of Indiana, No. 49A02-0908-CR-711, a not-for-publication opinion that affirmed Henley’s conviction of intimidation and sentence, which was enhanced by a habitual offender finding.

David Burks-Bey v. State of Indiana, No. 49A02-0903-PC-231, a not-for-publication opinion that affirmed a denial of motion to correct an erroneous sentence.

Gideon Samid v. Virginia Spencer, No. 06A01-0901-CV-45, a not-for-publication opinion that affirmed the trial court’s denial of Samid’s motion to correct error and remanded for determination of Spencer’s appellate attorneys’ fees in a case involving a protective order.

Robert L. Scott v. State of Indiana, No. 79A05-0812-CR-746, a for-publication case that considered Scott’s convictions of two counts of Class B felony possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon; one count of Class C felony battery with a deadly weapon; one count of Class D felony of pointing a firearm; and one count of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. In this case, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s handling of the case regarding its discretion in admitting evidence obtained from Scott’s residence and in admitting certain evidence in its determination that Scott was a serious violent felon. But the Court of Appeals reversed that decision regarding the trial court’s refusal to give a tendered instruction as to whether a gun in question was loaded.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT