ILNews

Opinions Aug. 17, 2010

August 17, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Cullen Davis Walker v. State of Indiana
71A03-1003-CR-115
Criminal. Affirms Walker’s convictions of burglary, robbery, criminal confinement – all as Class B felonies, and possession of cocaine as a Class C felony. Also affirms his sentence of 56 years. Walker argued his burglary and criminal confinement convictions should be vacated pursuant to the continuing crime doctrine because his offenses were all part of the same continuing crime since they occurred in a short period of time and facilitated his sole purpose of taking things from people at one house. The court ruled each offense was a distinct chargeable crime. Remands with instructions to correct clerical errors in the amended judgment and chronological case summary.

Paternity of M.B., N.B. v. J.W. (NFP)
45A03-0911-PL-536
Civil. Affirms in part, reverses in part, and remands. Rules the trial court did not abuse its discretion by sua sponte modifying the prior child-support order to reflect the mother was not providing overnight parenting time; remands for the court to adjust its order modifying the amount of support owed by mother so that it is prospective in nature only. Also rules the trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to enforce parenting time because it used its discretionary authority to threaten M.B. and his father with sanctions if M.B. failed to participate in parenting time. It also didn’t abuse its discretion by designating a mid-point for the mother and M.B. to meet for parenting time and by ordering mother to pay dental bills incurred because of her authorization of dental work not covered by M.B.’s insurance.

Mark Stearns v. Amy Taylor-Stearns (NFP)
45A03-0908-CV-380
Civil. Affirms order to strike husband’s motions he filed after court-ordered deadline, and dissolution court did not abuse its discretion finding in husband in contempt and imposing sanction for willful breach of settlement agreement.

In re the Guardianship of C.J.; T.J. v. K.M. (NFP)
27A02-1002-GU-150
Guardianship. Affirms grant of mother K.M.’s petition to terminate stepmother’s guardianship of son, C.J., after the father’s death.

Terry D. McClinton, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-0912-CR-712
Criminal. Affirms aggregate sentence of 28 years for two counts of Class B felony robbery and one count of Class B felony dealing in cocaine.

Breondon D. Pinkson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A05-1002-CR-146
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation, noting Pinkson was properly notified.

Golden Cummings v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-0912-CR-1252
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony battery.

Isidro Lopez-Ruiz v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A04-0912-CR-707
Criminal. Affirms 48-year sentence for convictions of two counts of Class A felony dealing in cocaine.

Earl Lee Russelburg v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1002-CR-113
Criminal. Affirms denial of petition for leave to file a belated notice of appeal.

Kenneth Ramey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1001-CR-5
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony dealing in cocaine.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

 

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