A situation where the total share capital value used to purchase another company is ...
Indiana Supreme Court Court Cases
Anglemyer v. State (2007)
In this opinion we discuss the respective roles of Indiana trial and appellate courts under the 2005 amendments to Indiana's criminal sentencing statutes. We hold that where a trial court imposes sentence for a felony offense it is required to issue a sentencing statement that includes a reasonably detailed recitation of the trial court's reasons for the sentence imposed. The standard of review is abuse of discretion.
Court: Indiana Supreme Court Docket: 43S05-0606-CR-230
Cardwell v. State (2008)
Rudy Wayne Cardwell challenges the appropriateness of his sentence under Indiana Rule of Appellate Procedure 7(B). Concluding that Cardwell's aggregate sentence of thirty-four years is inappropriate in light of the nature of his offense and his character, we revise his sentence to consecutive terms of nine and eight years for an aggregate sentence of seventeen years.
Court: Indiana Supreme Court Docket: 10S05-0811-CR-588
Childress v. State (2006)Roger D. Childress was charged with multiple drug related felony offenses and one non-drug related misdemeanor. Under the terms of a written plea agreement, Childress agreed to plead guilty to possession of methamphetamine as a Class B felony, and the State agreed to dismiss the remaining charges. The plea agreement also provided, "Defendant will be sentenced to the Indiana Department of Corrections for a period of six (6) years, however, both sides shall be free to argue what, if any, of the [...]
Court: Indiana Supreme Court Docket: 61S01-0510-CR-484 & 61S04-0510-CR-485
Anglemyer v. State (2007)
The defendant-petitioner, Alexander J. Anglemyer, seeks rehearing following our decision affirming his sentences for robbery and battery. We grant rehearing solely to clarify that a defendant who pleads guilty does not forfeit the opportunity to claim on appeal that the trial court should have considered his guilty plea a mitigating circumstance even though the defendant failed to assert this claim at sentencing.
Court: Indiana Supreme Court Docket: 43S05-0606-CR-230
Drane v. State (2007)
At the conclusion of a bench trial, the court found appellant Ronnie Drane guilty for the rape and murder of Tomorra "Precious" Taylor and sentenced him to a combined total of eighty-five years. The Court of Appeals reversed for insufficient evidence. Having granted transfer, we affirm the trial court.
Court: Indiana Supreme Court Docket: 45S04-0611-CR-477
The trial court terminated Robert Bester's parental rights on the ground that the parent-child relationship posed a threat to the well being of the child. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Concluding that the evidence does not clearly and convincingly demonstrate that Bester's parental rights should be terminated, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.
Court: Indiana Supreme Court Docket: 45S03-0509-JV-435
Richardson v. State (1999)
With today's decision, we address the application of the Indiana Double Jeopardy Clause, Article I, Section 14 of the Indiana Constitution, as distinct from its federal counterpart in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Court: Indiana Supreme Court Docket: 67S01-9910-CR-506
In Re GY (2009)
The trial court terminated R.Y.'s parental rights on grounds that the conditions which resulted in her son G.Y.'s removal will not be remedied and that termination is in G.Y.'s best interests. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Concluding that the evidence does not clearly and convincingly demonstrate that R.Y.'s parental rights should be terminated, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.
Court: Indiana Supreme Court Docket: 49S02-0902-JV-91
Prewitt v. State (2007)
The question here is whether the provisions of the Indiana Code governing probation violations permit a trial judge to order execution of one portion of a previously suspended sentence and continuation of another portion as probation under modified terms. We hold that such a disposition is within a court's statutory authority. The appropriate standard to apply when reviewing a sentence imposed for a probation violation is abuse of discretion.
Court: Indiana Supreme Court Docket: 10S04-0707-CR-294
McHenry v. State (2005)Following a jury trial, the defendant, Mirtha McHenry, a bank teller, was convicted of forgery, a class C felony, and theft, a class D felony, as a result of her actions relating to an unauthorized withdrawal of $6,500 from the account of a bank customer. Concluding that the evidence was insufficient to establish her guilt of either crime, the Court of Appeals reversed the convictions and remanded with instructions that she be discharged. We grant transfer and affirm the trial court.
Court: Indiana Supreme Court Docket: 79S02-0501-CR-1
Quillen v. Quillen (1996)On September 21, 1992, husband was arrested and incarcerated on child molesting charges. On September 24, 1992, wife petitioned for the dissolution of the couple's nearly 20 year marriage. In ordering the dissolution of the marriage, the trial court entered extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law in dividing the marital property. Husband appealed on multiple grounds and a divided panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part. Quillen v. Quillen, 659 N.E.2d [...]
Court: Indiana Supreme Court Docket: 29S02-9608-CV-531
Timberlake v. State (2001)Norman Timberlake was convicted of the murder of Indiana State Trooper Michael Greene and of carrying a handgun without a license. He was sentenced to death. He appeals the denial of his petition for postconviction relief and raises four issues: (1) his competency during trial, direct appeal, and postconviction relief; (2) ineffective assistance of trial counsel; (3) ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; and (4) bias of the postconviction court. We affirm the trial court's denial of [...]
Court: Indiana Supreme Court Docket: 49S00-9804-PD-252
Henley v. State (2008)
When a trial court summarily denies a pro se defendant's request that standby counsel deliver closing argument, the denial is not per se reversible error. Rather, the inquiry is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the request for counsel.
Court: Indiana Supreme Court Docket: 82S05-0701-PC-31
Fisher v. State (2004)
The question we address is whether the failure to raise on appeal the trial court's refusal to give a reckless homicide instruction as a lesser-included offense to murder amounts to ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. On the facts of this case, we conclude that it does.
Court: Indiana Supreme Court Docket: 45S03-0306-PC-251
Litchfield v. State (2005)
We hold that a search of trash recovered from the place where it is left for collection is permissible under the Indiana Constitution, but only if the investigating officials have an articulable basis justifying reasonable suspicion that the subjects of the search have engaged in violations of law that might reasonably lead to evidence in the trash.
Court: Indiana Supreme Court Docket: 50S03-0408-CR-382
Mary K. Reeder, Riley Bennett & Egloff, LLP, Richard A. Rocap, Rocap Witchger LLP, Indianapolis, IN, Jeffrey C. Gerish, Kenneth C. Newa, David A. Dworetsky, Plunkett & Cooney, P.C., Bloomfield Hills, MI, Attorneys for Appellees.
Court: Indiana Supreme Court Docket: 49S02-0805-CV-244
Davidson v. State (2010)
Contrasting opinions of the Court of Appeals have disagreed about the manner and extent of consideration to be given to the suspended portion of a sentence upon appellate review. To resolve this conflict, we granted transfer and hold that appellate review under Indiana Appellate Rule 7 may include consideration of the totality of the penal consequences found in a trial court's sentence.
Court: Indiana Supreme Court Docket: 49S02-1001-CR-41
Cooper v. State (2006)
A jury convicted Curtis Cooper of murdering Selena Orum and recommended a sentence of life without parole. The trial court followed the jury's recommendation. In this direct appeal Cooper argues that the State engaged in prosecutorial misconduct requiring the reversal of his conviction and sentence. We affirm the conviction but remand for a new sentencing phase of trial.
Court: Indiana Supreme Court Docket: 49S00-0407-CR-324
Jenkins v. State (2000)
The defendant-appellant, Rodney Kinta Jenkins, was convicted of felony murder for the killing of Timothy D. Thomas, the robbery of Darrick C. Lawson, and two counts of criminal confinement. In this direct appeal, his arguments concern: the applicability of the felony murder statute; sufficiency of the evidence; and double jeopardy.
Court: Indiana Supreme Court Docket: 02S00-9810-CR-538
KS v. State (2006)
Like the rest of the nation's courts, Indiana trial courts possess two kinds of "jurisdiction." Subject matter jurisdiction is the power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which any particular proceeding belongs. Personal jurisdiction requires that appropriate process be effected over the parties.
Court: Indiana Supreme Court Docket: 49S04-0503-JV-76