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. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT