ILNews

Opinions Feb. 10, 2014

February 10, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
The following opinion was issued after IL deadline Friday.
United States of America v. Timmothy Williams
13-1260
Criminal. Vacates sentence for convictions related to identity theft and remands to the District Court. In accordance with the ruling in Peugh v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2072, 2078 (2013), sentencing guidelines that were stricter than those in place at the time Williams committed the crime were improperly applied when he was sentenced to 56 months in prison for identity theft convictions plus 24 months for aggravated identity theft. Remands to sentence Williams to 30 to 37 months in prison – the range under the guidelines in place at the time of his offenses.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Amy R. Hockett v. State of Indiana (NFP)
89A05-1304-CR-174
Criminal. Affirms conviction and 60-year sentence for murder.

Jonathon Harris v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1307-CR-655
Criminal. Affirms probation revocation.

Jeffery L. Fleenor, Sr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
88A01-1307-CR-296
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea to a charge of Class B felony possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon.

Larry K. Croucher II v. State of Indiana (NFP)
05A02-1302-CR-172
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony maintaining a common nuisance.

Darin M. Wilson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
84A01-1309-CR-382
Criminal. Affirms 40-year sentence for conviction of Class B felony robbery and habitual offender enhancement.

Charles Thompson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A05-1211-CR-578
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony dealing in methamphetamine and two Class D felony counts of possession of a controlled substance.

Aguila Binion v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A05-1306-CR-292
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony strangulation.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court issued to opinions prior to IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no opinions Monday prior to IL deadline.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT