Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowThe following Indiana Supreme Court opinion was posted after IL deadline Friday:
Tyre Bradbury v. State of Indiana
21S-PC-441
Post-conviction. Affirms the denial of post-conviction relief for Tyre Bradbury following his conviction for murder and his sentence to 60 years. Finds Bradbury’s counsel was not ineffective. Justice Mark Massa concurs with separate opinion, joined by Justice Geoffrey Slaughter. Justice Christopher Goff dissents with separate opinion, joined by Indiana Chief Justice Loretta Rush.
Monday opinions
Indiana Court of Appeals
Mark Anthony Fuller v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
21A-CR-597
Criminal. Affirms the order for Mark Fuller to execute a portion of his previously suspended sentence and that his probation be extended as a result of a probation violation. Finds the Dearborn Superior Court didn’t abuse its discretion in imposing sanctions.
Heather D. Knott v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
21A-CR-198
Criminal. Affirms the Floyd Superior Court’s revocation of Heather D. Knott’s probation and the sanction imposed for violating her drug probation. Finds Knott’s due process rights weren’t violated. Also finds the trial court didn’t abuse its discretion in determining the sanction for her probation violations.
In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of C.G. (Minor Child) and A.M. (Mother) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
21A-JT-543
Juvenile termination of parental rights. Affirms the Howard Circuit Court’s termination of the parental rights of mother A.M. to child C.G. Finds A.M. has failed to establish that her family case manager was biased against her, or that the juvenile court’s order was improper, inadequate or illegal. Also finds the evidence is sufficient to support the conclusion that there is a reasonable probability that the conditions that resulted in C.G.’s removal from A.M.’s care would not be remedied. Finally, finds the juvenile court’s determination that termination of A.M.’s parental rights is in C.G.’s best interests is supported by sufficient evidence.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.