ILNews

Opinions July 28, 2014

July 28, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinions were posted after IL deadline Friday:
Toni Ball v. City of Indianapolis, et al.
13-1901
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Sarah Evans Barker.
Civil. Affirms District Court’s dismissal of Ball’s wrongful arrest complaints against police and municipal defendants, preserving only a Fourth Amendment claim against a detective that since has been removed to state court. Because the allegations of the complaint did not support Ball’s claims for relief except for her Fourth Amendment claims, the district court properly dismissed and granted judgment on the pleadings of those claims.

Che B. Carter v. Keith Butts
13-2466
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Sarah Evans Barker.
Criminal. Affirms denial of petition for habeas corpus. Holds that Carter, serving a 90-year sentence on convictions of burglary, robbery, rape and attempted murder, was not sufficiently prejudiced. Finds that the Indiana Supreme Court did not unreasonably conclude that Carter had not met the two-prong ineffective assistance of counsel test established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).

Leonard Dewitt v. Corizon, Inc., et al.
13-2930
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Terre Haute Division, Judge William T. Lawrence.
Civil. Reverses denial of motions for recruitment of counsel and grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant and remands so the court may recruit counsel so that  Dewitt can conduct further discovery in order to litigate his deliberate indifference case.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Bobby Alexander v. State of Indiana
49A04-1207-CR-351
Criminal. Reverse one of two convictions for Class B felony aggravated battery. Rules the state incorrectly asserted in the charging information and during closing arguments that Alexander’s actions of shooting at a car created a substantial risk of death. The statute clearly provides that the substantial risk of death must be created by the injury inflicted upon the victim and not by the defendant’s actions. Remands with instructions to enter judgment of conviction for battery as a Class C felony and to resentence accordingly.  

Chad Matthew McClellan v. State of Indiana
29A05-1401-CR-7
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony battery, holding that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to conclude that a stun gun was a deadly weapon for purposes of the battery with a deadly weapon statute.

Ashley Bell v. State of Indiana
49A02-1312-CR-1026
Criminal. Affirms conviction for Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana. Finds Bell’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated by the warrantless patdown search which led to the discovery of 10 baggies of marijuana. Rules that based on precedent, the smell of marijuana gave the police officer probable cause to conduct a patdown search.

J.P. v. G.M. and R.M.
38A02-1311-MI-960
Miscellaneous/grandparent visitation. Reverses order awarding maternal grandparents G.M. and R.M. visitation with their 3-year-old grandchild, finding that father J.P. was prejudiced by the denial of a motion for continuance after learning that grandparents were represented by counsel and he was not. Remands for a new hearing.

Uriah M. Levy v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A04-1402-CR-67
Criminal. Affirms revocation of Levy’s probation.

In the Matter of the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of K.S., D.S., and N.S., Minor Children, and Their Father S.S., S.S. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
49A02-1312-JT-1051
Juvenile. Affirms juvenile court’s order terminating father’s parental right to his three minor children.

Charles E. Decker v. State of Indiana (NFP)
84A01-1401-CR-19
Criminal. Affirms revocation of Decker’s probation and the trial court’s order that he serve the remaining four years of his sentence in the Indiana Department of Correction.  

Henry Lewis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1307-PC-342
Post conviction. Affirms denial of Lewis’s petition for post-conviction relief.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court did not post any opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals did not submit any Indiana opinions by IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The is an unsigned editorial masquerading as a news story. Almost everyone quoted was biased in favor of letting all illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. (Ignoring that Obama deported 3.5 million in 8 years). For some reason Obama enforcing part of the immigration laws was O.K. but Trump enforcing additional parts is terrible. I have listed to press conferences and explanations of the Homeland Security memos and I gather from them that less than 1 million will be targeted for deportation, the "dreamers" will be left alone and illegals arriving in the last two years -- especially those arriving very recently -- will be subject to deportation but after the criminals. This will not substantially affect the GDP negatively, especially as it will take place over a number of years. I personally think this is a rational approach to the illegal immigration problem. It may cause Congress to finally pass new immigration laws rationalizing the whole immigration situation.

  2. Mr. Straw, I hope you prevail in the fight. Please show us fellow American's that there is a way to fight the corrupted justice system and make them an example that you and others will not be treated unfairly. I hope you the best and good luck....

  3. @ President Snow - Nah, why try to fix something that ain't broken??? You do make an excellent point. I am sure some Mickey or Minnie Mouse will take Ruckers seat, I wonder how his retirement planning is coming along???

  4. Can someone please explain why Judge Barnes, Judge Mathias and Chief Judge Vaidik thought it was OK to re weigh the evidence blatantly knowing that by doing so was against the rules and went ahead and voted in favor of the father? I would love to ask them WHY??? I would also like to ask the three Supreme Justices why they thought it was OK too.

  5. How nice, on the day of my car accident on the way to work at the Indiana Supreme Court. Unlike the others, I did not steal any money or do ANYTHING unethical whatsoever. I am suing the Indiana Supreme Court and appealed the failure of the district court in SDIN to protect me. I am suing the federal judge because she failed to protect me and her abandonment of jurisdiction leaves her open to lawsuits because she stripped herself of immunity. I am a candidate for Indiana Supreme Court justice, and they imposed just enough sanction so that I am made ineligible. I am asking the 7th Circuit to remove all of them and appoint me as the new Chief Justice of Indiana. That's what they get for dishonoring my sacrifice and and violating the ADA in about 50 different ways.

ADVERTISEMENT