Opinions Aug. 7, 2020

  • Print
Listen to this story

Subscriber Benefit

As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
This audio file is brought to you by
0:00
0:00
Loading audio file, please wait.
  • 0.25
  • 0.50
  • 0.75
  • 1.00
  • 1.25
  • 1.50
  • 1.75
  • 2.00

Indiana Court of Appeals
Larry Tabb v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
18A-PC-1364
Post conviction. Affirms the denial of Larry Tab’s petition for post-conviction relief. Finds a majority of Tabb’s issues are waived because he did not make cogent arguments on appeal. Finds Tabb has not demonstrated the Porter Superior Court erred by denying his petition for post-conviction relief.

In re the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of K.K. (Minor Child) and M.K. (Father); M.K. (Father) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
20A-JT-194
Juvenile termination. Affirms the termination of M.K.’s parental rights to his child, K.K. Finds the Allen Superior Court did not err when it concluded that there is a reasonable probability that the conditions resulting in K.K.’s removal and continued placement outside the home will not be remedied.

Dante M. Riley v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
19A-CR-3002
Criminal. Affirms Dante Riley’s seven-year sentence for conviction in Vigo Superior Court of Level 4 felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon. Finds Riley has failed to demonstrate that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character.

In re the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of B.B.K, J-E.K., J-M.K., and A-M.K. (Minor Children) and M.K. (Mother) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
20A-JT-443
Juvenile termination. Affirms the termination of M.K.’s parental rights to her four children. Finds that although the appellate court agrees with mother’s argument that four of the Vigo Circuit Court’s findings were not supported by clear and convincing evidence, it did not consider those findings in reaching its conclusion that the trial court’s termination order is supported by clear and convincing evidence.

Please enable JavaScript to view this content.

{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining
{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining Article limit resets on
{{ count_down }}