ILNews

Opinions April 17, 2012

April 17, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Kimani Lanier Fleming
11-1404
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, Judge Robert L. Miller Jr.
Criminal. Affirms Fleming’s revised sentence of 480 months imprisonment for convictions of several serious drug and firearm charges. There was no clear error in the District Court’s decision to include routine drug purchases as relevant conduct when it computed his revised sentencing guideline range. Denies Fleming’s implicit request for an expanded certificate of appealability.  

Indiana Tax Court
Utilimaster Corporation v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue
71T10-1008-TA-43
Tax. Rules Utilimaster’s attorneys are not necessary witnesses pursuant to Professional Conduct Rule 3.7, as information they could testify about can be obtained from Utilimaster employees. The Department of State Revenue has invoked Professional Conduct Rule 3.7 in an attempt to conceal its failure to timely pursue discovery as well as to remove Utilimaster’s attorneys from the case, calling their professionalism into question. The court will not countenance the rule’s abuse as a procedural weapon by invading Utilimaster’s right to counsel of its choice.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Charles Westmoreland v. State of Indiana
49A04-1107-CR-356
Criminal. Reverses denial of motion to suppress marijuana, finding the trial court erred in denying the motion because the officers did not reasonably believe Westmoreland was armed and dangerous. Remands with instructions for the trial court to dismiss the possession of marijuana charge.

Barbara (Rosario) Bessolo v. William I. Rosario
29A02-1108-DR-789
Domestic relation. Affirms finding that Bessolo failed to dismiss the protective order against Rosario as required by the dissolution decree, that she was in contempt, and the award of compensatory damages and attorney fees to Rosario. Reverses the 10-day suspended sentence imposed on Bessolo for future violations of any of the court’s orders. Because Bessolo was aware that she was required to dismiss the protective order but failed to do so and later relied upon it in her dealing with police, the trial court did not err in finding her in contempt.

Trust No. 6011, Lake County Trust Company, Trustee, Simon Beemsterboer, and Victoria J. Beemsterboer v. Heil's Haven Condominiums Homeowners Assn.
43A05-1108-PL-433
Civil plenary. Reverses the portion of paragraph 1 of the judgment that permanently enjoins the Beemsterboers from obstructing the homeowners association’s use of the walkway easement and placing a fence that blocks access to that area, paragraph 2 of the judgment ordering the couple to remove the staircase and repair the sidewalk, and paragraph 3 of the judgment prohibiting the couple from interfering with the reconstructed sidewalk. Affirms paragraph 4 in which the couple was permanently enjoined “from in any fashion interfering with the (association’s) deck.”

Gerald Mayberry v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1109-CR-879
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor interference with reporting a crime and Class B misdemeanor battery.

Jamie E. Green v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1106-CR-316
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct.

Robbie S. McCain-Ficklin v. State of Indiana (NFP)

27A02-1108-CR-767
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony battery on McCain-Ficklin’s minor stepson.

Charles Frederick Miller v. State of Indiana (NFP)

41A01-1106-CR-250
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony auto theft.

John Brooke v. State of Indiana (NFP)
75A05-1106-CR-297
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony conspiracy to commit armed robbery and 22-year sentence.

The Law Office of Deborah Agard v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development (NFP)
93A02-1107-EX-672
Agency appeal. Affirms finding that the law office owed unemployment insurance tax contributions for an individual the office paid to perform cleaning services at its office and at Kids’ Voice, a nonprofit center where Deborah Agard, the sole proprietor of the law office, serves on the board of directors.

Sterling B. Nelson v. Michelle L. Nelson (NFP)
29A05-1110-DR-533
Domestic relation. Affirms post-dissolution order, in which the trial court imputed $415 in gross weekly income to father during his 12-week period of unemployment and refused to deviate from the Child Support Guidelines.

Manuel Martinez v. State of Indiana (NFP)
57A03-1109-CR-554
Criminal. Affirms restitution order following guilty plea to battery.

Michael M. and Lana S. Ashley, et al. v. Jeffrey and Holly Spaw, et al. (NFP)
02A03-1108-MI-340
Miscellaneous. Affirms trial court’s affirmation of the Indiana Natural Resources Commission’s decision to rule in favor of several back-lot owners in the Long Lake Park subdivision regarding riparian rights.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT