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. Actually, and most strikingly, the ruling failed to address the central issue to the whole case: Namely, Black Knight/LPS, who was NEVER a party to the State court litigation, and who is under a 2013 consent judgment in Indiana (where it has stipulated to the forgery of loan documents, the ones specifically at issue in my case)never disclosed itself in State court or remediated the forged loan documents as was REQUIRED of them by the CJ. In essence, what the court is willfully ignoring, is that it is setting a precedent that the supplier of a defective product, one whom is under a consent judgment stipulating to such, and under obligation to remediate said defective product, can: 1.) Ignore the CJ 2.) Allow counsel to commit fraud on the state court 3.) Then try to hide behind Rooker Feldman doctrine as a bar to being held culpable in federal court. The problem here is the court is in direct conflict with its own ruling(s) in Johnson v. Pushpin Holdings & Iqbal- 780 F.3d 728, at 730 “What Johnson adds - what the defendants in this suit have failed to appreciate—is that federal courts retain jurisdiction to award damages for fraud that imposes extrajudicial injury. The Supreme Court drew that very line in Exxon Mobil ... Iqbal alleges that the defendants conducted a racketeering enterprise that predates the state court’s judgments ...but Exxon Mobil shows that the Rooker Feldman doctrine asks what injury the plaintiff asks the federal court to redress, not whether the injury is “intertwined” with something else …Because Iqbal seeks damages for activity that (he alleges) predates the state litigation and caused injury independently of it, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not block this suit. It must be reinstated.” So, as I already noted to others, I now have the chance to bring my case to SCOTUS; the ruling by Wood & Posner is flawed on numerous levels,BUT most troubling is the fact that the authors KNOW it's a flawed ruling and choose to ignore the flaws for one simple reason: The courts have decided to agree with former AG Eric Holder that national banks "Are too big to fail" and must win at any cost-even that of due process, case precedent, & the truth....Let's see if SCOTUS wants a bite at the apple.

  2. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  3. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  4. Please I need help with my class action lawsuits, im currently in pro-se and im having hard time findiNG A LAWYER TO ASSIST ME

  5. Access to the court (judiciary branch of government) is the REAL problem, NOT necessarily lack of access to an attorney. Unfortunately, I've lived in a legal and financial hell for the past six years due to a divorce (where I was, supposedly, represented by an attorney) in which I was defrauded of settlement and the other party (and helpers) enriched through the fraud. When I attempted to introduce evidence and testify (pro se) in a foreclosure/eviction, I was silenced (apparently on procedural grounds, as research I've done since indicates). I was thrown out of a residence which was to be sold, by a judge who refused to allow me to speak in (the supposedly "informal") small claims court where the eviction proceeding (by ex-brother-in-law) was held. Six years and I can't even get back on solid or stable ground ... having bank account seized twice, unlawfully ... and now, for the past year, being dragged into court - again, contrary to law and appellate decisions - by former attorney, who is trying to force payment from exempt funds. Friday will mark fifth appearance. Hopefully, I'll be allowed to speak. The situation I find myself in shouldn't even be possible, much less dragging out with no end in sight, for years. I've done nothing wrong, but am watching a lot of wrong being accomplished under court jurisdiction; only because I was married to someone who wanted and was granted a divorce (but was not willing to assume the responsibilities that come with granting the divorce). In fact, the recalcitrant party was enriched by well over $100k, although it was necessarily split with other actors. Pro bono help? It's a nice dream ... but that's all it is, for too many. Meanwhile, injustice marches on.

ADVERTISEMENT