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. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT