ILNews

Opinions April 15, 2014

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

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Marcus Henderson
13-2483
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to suppress and conviction of being a drug user in possession of firearms in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g)(3). Rejects Henderson’s argument that the firearms were discovered pursuant to an unconstitutional search because the protective sweep of his home was unreasonable. The record is replete with specific and articulable facts which the SWAT officers reasonably relied upon to conclude that the officers or others faced a dangerous situation without a protective sweep of his house.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Lucas H. Jackson v. State of Indiana
62A04-1311-CR-563
Criminal. Reverses revocation of probation. The trial court abused its discretion by revoking the probation because it could not determine, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Jackson had actually committed a new criminal offense.

Tammy Carter v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1309-CR-752
Criminal. Affirms conviction of two counts of Class D felony neglect of a dependent.  

Edrece Bryant v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1309-CR-806
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony strangulation and Class A misdemeanor domestic battery.

Antrone Crockett v. Clair Barnes and Mark Sevier (NFP)
52A05-1306-PL-304
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Barnes and Sevier on inmate Crockett’s claim that the defendants denied him access to the courts.

Patricia Leslie v. Liberty Dialysis, Inc., Liberty Dialysis-Lebanon, LLC., Witham Memorial Hospital, and NLMP, Inc. (NFP)
06A01-1309-CT-400
Civil tort. Affirms in part, reverses in part and remands. Because the designated evidence supports a reasonable inference that Leslie slipped on ice, the grant of summary judgment for Liberty was improper. As for Witham and NLMP, however, Leslie has made no argument that they were not entitled to summary judgment on the alternate theories relating to immunity and lack of duty. In the absence of any such argument, she has not established that the entry of summary judgment for Witham and NLMP was improper.

Mark Conner v. State of Indiana (NFP)
33A01-1308-CR-355
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony theft and Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief and the finding Conner is a habitual offender. Remands for trial court to correct the sentencing order and abstract of judgment.

Lloyd W. Mezick v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1307-CR-649
Criminal. Affirms revocation of placement in a community corrections program.

Regina Choice v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1306-CR-227
Criminal. Affirms two-year sentence for Class D felony theft.

Kenton T. Winder v. State of Indiana (NFP)
10A04-1309-CR-461
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class B felonies robbery and criminal confinement as well as Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license. Remands with instructions to correct the abstract of judgment.

Jason R. Barton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A05-1307-CR-355
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion for immediate discharge from unlawful and illegal imprisonment.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court did not post any opinions by IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....

ADVERTISEMENT