ILNews

Opinions Aug. 15, 2014

August 15, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion was posted after IL deadline Thursday:
United States of America v. Randall Ray Fletcher Jr.
12-3104
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division. Judge Joseph S. Van Bokkelen.
Criminal. Affirms 30-year sentence in prison plus a lifetime of supervised release following a guilty plea to five counts involving child pornography that occurred over a seven-year period. Because his crimes spanned a range of years during which the guidelines for child pornography offenses underwent significant changes, his sentencing posed complex calculations and raised potential constitutional problems. Any errors the court made in calculating the guidelines sentence for Fletcher were harmless.

Friday’s opinions
Indiana Court of Appeals

Dee Ward v. State of Indiana
49A02-1401-CR-25
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felony battery and Class A misdemeanor domestic battery. The Confrontation Clause does not apply because victim J.M.’s statements to the treating paramedic and forensic nurse were not testimonial and the evidence is sufficient to prove Ward committed the underlying battery by means of a deadly weapon.

Michael Kevin Mallory v. State of Indiana
20A03-1403-MI-76
Miscellaneous. Reverses denial of Mallory’s petition to expunge his Class D felony conviction records. Because the word “shall” is ordinarily construed as mandatory language, I.C. 35-38-9-3(e) unambiguously requires expungement if all statutory requirements are met. Remands with instructions.

Allison I. (Wagaman) DeCloedt v. Shane C. Wagaman
92A03-1401-DR-39
Domestic relation. Affirms dissolution court’s order denying DeCloedt’s motion to relocate and granting Wagaman’s petition to modify custody and parenting time. It is in the best interests of the child to stay in Indiana with his father and future stepsiblings, both sets of grandparents and cousins living nearby.

In the Matter of: S.A. (Minor Child), Child in Need of Services and M.H. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services
49A02-1402-JC-74
Juvenile. Reverses order continuing the adjudication of S.A. as a child in need of services. The evidence does not support that court intervention is required for father to meet S.A.’s needs.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: D.D. (Minor Child) and B.T. (Mother) and D.D. (Father) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
49A02-1312-JT-1027
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Thomas Yoder v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1401-CR-2
Criminal. Reverses part of the sentencing order that restitution for the victim be ordered through a victim-offender reconciliation program instead of determined by the court. Remands for a restitution hearing.

Terry A. Moore v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1401-PC-11
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

J.E. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1312-JV-1053
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication of delinquency based on findings J.E. committed what would be two counts of Class B felony child molesting if committed by an adult.

In Re: The Paternity of R.M.: Laura K. Chivers v. Jeffery L. Marquardt (NFP)
02A05-1310-JP-496
Juvenile. Affirms order modifying custody and parenting time.

Dennis Wireman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
75A03-1312-CR-504
Criminal. Affirms sentence for convictions of three counts of Class D felony illegal possession of a controlled substance, Class D felony illegal possession of a syringe and Class D felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated with a prior conviction.

In the Matter of Q.F. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
03A01-1401-JV-45
Juvenile.  Finds entering true findings of both battery resulting in bodily injury and disorderly conduct violates double jeopardy principles. Remands with instructions to vacate Q.F.’s true finding of disorderly conduct. Affirms true finding of battery resulting in bodily injury.

Marshawn A. Moore v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A04-1312-CR-623
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony burglary.

Debb Durbin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1312-CR-1043
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass.

Stephen W. McIntyre v. State of Indiana (NFP)
35A02-1402-CR-82
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft.

Darnell M. Rias, Sr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A05-1312-CR-630
Criminal. Remands with instructions to vacate Rias’ conviction for Class D felony failure to register as a sex or violent offender due to double jeopardy principles. Affirms second conviction and sentence for Class D felony failure to register as a sex or violent offender as a Class D felony.
 

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