ILNews

Opinions Nov. 21, 2012

November 21, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. William Hagler
11-2984
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, Judge William C. Lee.
Criminal. Affirms conviction of attempted bank robbery. Hagler argued that the government waited too long to indict him, that the evidence was insufficient to convict him, and that new DNA testing entitles him to a new trial.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Tyler A. White v. State of Indiana
90A04-1111-CR-621
Criminal. Affirms murder conviction. The probative value of the 804(b)(5) evidence outweighed the danger of the unfair prejudice to White. The Legislature’s intent in the feticide enhancement statute is clear that the state need not prove a defendant’s mens rea when seeking a sentence enhancement for feticide.

Robert D. Davis v. State of Indiana
11A01-1204-CR-251
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to correct erroneous sentence. The trial court followed the appellate court’s order on remand as far as resentencing, and Davis did not develop a cogent argument with respect to how a 1994 amendment regarding sentencing would have affected his sentence.

Romero Leslie v. State of Indiana
49A04-1203-CR-135
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony dealing in cocaine. Leslie hasn’t shown that the trial court committed fundamental error when it denied his request to dismiss a juror, nor that the court abused its discretion when it dismissed another juror after she stated she couldn’t render a decision based on the evidence.

Thomas H. Andrews v. State of Indiana
29A02-1112-MI-1166
Miscellaneous. Reverses and remands with instructions to grant Andrew’s petition to be removed from the sex offender registry. Requiring him to register violates the Indiana Constitution prohibitions on ex post facto laws, and Indiana state courts do not have the authority to consider whether federal statutory penalties attach to Andrews’ conduct.

James Henley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1205-CR-404
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felonies attempted forgery and forgery, and Class D felony theft.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of K.S. and K.C. (Minor Children) and Y.C. (Mother) v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
48A04-1202-JT-52
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Lanika Young v. State of Indiana (NFP)
http://media.ibj.com/Lawyer/websites/opinions/index.php?pdf=2012/november/11211205pdm.pdf
49A04-1203-CR-138
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT