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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT