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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  2. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

  3. This law is troubling in two respects: First, why wasn't the law reviewed "with the intention of getting all the facts surrounding the legislation and its actual impact on the marketplace" BEFORE it was passed and signed? Seems a bit backwards to me (even acknowledging that this is the Indiana state legislature we're talking about. Second, what is it with the laws in this state that seem to create artificial monopolies in various industries? Besides this one, the other law that comes to mind is the legislation that governed the granting of licenses to firms that wanted to set up craft distilleries. The licensing was limited to only those entities that were already in the craft beer brewing business. Republicans in this state talk a big game when it comes to being "business friendly". They're friendly alright . . . to certain businesses.

  4. Gretchen, Asia, Roberto, Tonia, Shannon, Cheri, Nicholas, Sondra, Carey, Laura ... my heart breaks for you, reaching out in a forum in which you are ignored by a professional suffering through both compassion fatigue and the love of filthy lucre. Most if not all of you seek a warm blooded Hoosier attorney unafraid to take on the government and plead that government officials have acted unconstitutionally to try to save a family and/or rescue children in need and/or press individual rights against the Leviathan state. I know an attorney from Kansas who has taken such cases across the country, arguing before half of the federal courts of appeal and presenting cases to the US S.Ct. numerous times seeking cert. Unfortunately, due to his zeal for the constitutional rights of peasants and willingness to confront powerful government bureaucrats seemingly violating the same ... he was denied character and fitness certification to join the Indiana bar, even after he was cleared to sit for, and passed, both the bar exam and ethics exam. And was even admitted to the Indiana federal bar! NOW KNOW THIS .... you will face headwinds and difficulties in locating a zealously motivated Hoosier attorney to face off against powerful government agents who violate the constitution, for those who do so tend to end up as marginalized as Paul Odgen, who was driven from the profession. So beware, many are mere expensive lapdogs, the kind of breed who will gladly take a large retainer, but then fail to press against the status quo and powers that be when told to heel to. It is a common belief among some in Indiana that those attorneys who truly fight the power and rigorously confront corruption often end up, actually or metaphorically, in real life or at least as to their careers, as dead as the late, great Gary Welch. All of that said, I wish you the very best in finding a Hoosier attorney with a fighting spirit to press your rights as far as you can, for you do have rights against government actors, no matter what said actors may tell you otherwise. Attorneys outside the elitist camp are often better fighters that those owing the powers that be for their salaries, corner offices and end of year bonuses. So do not be afraid to retain a green horn or unconnected lawyer, many of them are fine men and woman who are yet untainted by the "unique" Hoosier system.

  5. I am not the John below. He is a journalist and talk show host who knows me through my years working in Kansas government. I did no ask John to post the note below ...

ADVERTISEMENT