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. 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