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

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. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT