ILNews

Opinions April 12, 2012

April 12, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Jaymie T. Mount
11-2616
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Jane E. Magnus-Stinson.
Criminal. Remands for resentencing after the District Court denied the government’s motion for Mount to receive an additional one-level reduction following his guilty plea, citing Mount’s flight from charges. The additional reduction is mandatory once the government determines that the criteria spelled out in U.S.S.G. Section 3E1.1(b) are satisfied and it makes the necessary motion.

United States of America v. Anthony Raupp
11-2215
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Tanya Walton Pratt.
Criminal. Amends original opinion issued March 9, 2012, in which majority affirmed 100-month sentence and determination Raupp is a career offender. Judge Diane Wood dissents.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
John Morse, M.D. v. Jeffrey Wayne Davis

84A05-1103-CT-140
Civil tort. Affirms judgment against Dr. Morse following a jury trial on Davis’ complaint alleging medical malpractice for failure to diagnose Davis’ colon cancer. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it excluded from evidence at trial certain expert testimony, a medical record and the testimony of a treating physician and nurse.

Jarrad L. Mastin v. State of Indiana
18A02-1109-CR-890
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentences for one count of Class A felony child molesting and two counts of Class B felony child molesting. Mastin did not demonstrate that the trial court’s evidentiary rulings denied him a fair trial. There is sufficient evidence from which the jury could conclude he committed child molesting by sexual intercourse.

H.V. and O.P. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
02A05-1108-JT-506
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Robert E. Stanley v. State of Indiana (NFP)

18A02-1109-CR-834
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony home improvement fraud.

Gary Anderson Proby v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A05-1110-CR-522
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony burglary.

Johnny Lee Gibson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1109-CR-494
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony rape.

D.H. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1110-JV-533
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication for committing what would be Class C felony intimidation and two acts that would have been Class B misdemeanor possession of a knife on school property, if committed by an adult.

Jason Haste and Jamie R. Haste v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A05-1107-CR-364
Criminal. Affirms the Hastes’ convictions of and sentences for maintaining a common nuisance and possession of marijuana as Class D felonies, but vacates their convictions of Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana due to double jeopardy violations.

Joseph Adams v. State of Indiana (NFP)
33A04-1110-CR-562
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief and the revocation of Adams’ probation.

David Paul Burns v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1108-CR-364
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft and adjudication as a habitual offender.

Rodney W. Robinson v. Arthur Cashwell & Roxie Battle (NFP)
45A03-1107-SC-351
Small claim. Affirms judgment against Robinson and in favor of Cashwell and Battle on Robinson’s claim that the defendants had his truck improperly towed.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT