ILNews

Supreme Court takes 4 cases

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has granted transfer to four cases, including two cases dealing with double jeopardy issues.

In Michael Sharp v. State of Indiana, No. 12S02-1109-CR-544, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed Michael Sharp’s convictions of and sentence for Class A and Class C felony child molesting. His convictions on both charges didn’t violate double jeopardy standards because each offense required additional proof not used to support the other. The Court of Appeals also concluded that a defendant’s credit restricted felon status can’t be taken into consideration on Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) review.  

In Jerrell D. White v. State of Indiana, No. 15S01-1109-CR-545, the Court of Appeals affirmed Jerrell White’s conviction of Class D felony theft for stealing a cash register and cash from a restaurant, but reversed his conviction of Class D felony receiving stolen property because of double jeopardy violations. The judges also found insufficient evidence to support a habitual offender finding. They affirmed White’s remaining three-year sentence on the theft conviction and remanded with instructions.

On a rehearing petitioned for by the state, the appellate court remanded to the trial court with instructions that it rehear evidence on the habitual offender enhancement, and affirmed its original decision in all other respects.

In Michael W. Baker v. State of Indiana, No. 89S01-1109-CR-543, the Court of Appeals in a not-for-publication decision reversed Michael Baker’s conviction of Class B felony burglary as well as the determination that he’s a habitual offender. The judges ordered an entry of judgment of conviction for criminal trespass and sentence on that offense.

In Michael B. Adams v. State of Indiana, No. 29S02-1109-CR-542, the COA affirmed Michael Adams’ conviction of Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana and the decision by the trial court to suspend his license and registration. Adams was a passenger in a car pulled over for speeding, and the police officer could smell raw marijuana coming from the car when Adams rolled down his window. There was sufficient evidence to support the conviction, and the license and registration suspensions were appropriate under Indiana Code 35-48-4-15.  

The justices also denied transfer to 23 cases for the week ending Sept. 9.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT