ILNews

Opinions Dec. 5, 2012

December 5, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Gregory Wolfe
11-3281
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, Judge Rudy Lozano.
Criminal. Affirms convictions of bank theft and interstate transportation of stolen goods for Wolfe’s role in a copper theft scheme and his 88-month sentence, followed by concurrent three-year terms of supervised release, and order of more than $3 million in restitution. Wolfe argued that he was deprived of a fair trial because of statements the prosecutor made during closing argument. He also challenged the sentence and restitution order. Wolfe’s contentions lack merit.

Indiana Court of Appeals
In Re the Name Change of John William Resnover and In Re the Name Change of John Arthur Herron
49A02-1205-MI-364
Miscellaneous. Reverses denial of Resnover’s and Herron’s petitions to change their names. The trial court erred when it required a valid driver’s license or valid state ID card as a prerequisite to grant the petition for name change pursuant to I.C. 34-28-2. Remands for further proceedings. Judge Crone dissents in part.

Trenton Teague v. State of Indiana
89A01-1202-CR-86
Criminal. Affirms convictions and sentences for Class A felony burglary and Class C felony battery. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting a 911 call and Teague’s aggregate, executed sentence of 40 years is appropriate. Judge Barnes concurs in result.

Bret Lee Sisson v. State of Indiana
09A02-1102-CR-199
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony burglary, Class B felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, receiving stolen property as a Class D felony and adjudication as a habitual offender. There was no fundamental error when the state refiled the previously dismissed SVF charge and habitual offender allegation after Sisson’s first trial ended in a mistrial due to jury deadlock, and the trial court did not err in denying his motion for change of judge for sentencing purposes only. Affirms in all other respects.

Adoption of K.S., A Minor Child: A.S. and D.S. v. C.Z.
85A04-1205-AD-243
Adoption. Reverses denial of verified petition for adoption of K.S. and remands for further proceedings. The trial court erred in concluding that the natural mother’s consent to the adoption of her minor child by stepmother was required.  

Mitchell Burton v. State of Indiana
71A03-1203-CR-129
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class D felony resisting law enforcement and remands for the trial court to vacate. The trial court abused its discretion in refusing to give Burton’s tendered self-defense and resistance of unlawful force instructions.

Tarique Henderson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1202-CR-50
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony attempted murder and Class B felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon.
 
Agustin Martinez v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1203-CR-197
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class C felony child molesting.

Kamari Hogue, A Minor, By and Through His Parent And Next Friend, Trent Hogue v. Robert Critz, Jr. (NFP)
02A05-1204-CT-192
Civil tort. Affirms jury verdict in Critz’s favor on Houge’s suit for negligence.

Robert D. Rogers, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A05-1204-CR-211
Criminal. Affirms conviction of failure to register as offender, elevated to a Class C felony as a result of a previous conviction for failure to register.

Mahamat Outman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1204-CR-197
Criminal. Affirms application of the credit restricted felon statute to Outman’s conviction for Class A felony child molesting as alleged in Count III was not an ex post facto violation.

Kelvin Whitby v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1205-CR-226
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class D felony domestic battery.

First Chicago Insurance Company v. Philip Hempel, Farm Bureau Insurance Company of Michigan, and American Transportation on Time, Inc. (NFP)
71A03-1202-PL-64
Civil plenary. Affirms dismissal of First Chicago’s complaint for declaratory judgment. The trial court did not err in dismissing the declaratory judgment action on principles of comity.

Susan Edwards v. Deutsche Bank National, Trust Company (NFP)
02A03-1201-MF-24
Mortgage foreclosure. Affirms summary judgment in favor of the bank in the bank’s in rem action against real property owned by Edwards.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: A.T., Minor Child, M.T., Father v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
42A04-1203-JT-118
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of father’s parental rights.

Herman Gehl, II v. State of Indiana (NFP)
13A01-1203-CR-92
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to two counts of Class D felony invasion of privacy.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  2. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  3. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  4. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  5. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

ADVERTISEMENT