ILNews

Opinions April 7, 2014

April 7, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Stephanie L. Donelli
13-2548
Criminal. Affirms 60-month sentence for convictions of wire fraud and tax evasion. Donelli’s claim that the trial court erred by failing to consider her mental illness, bipolar II disorder, as a principal argument in mitigation was rejected because she failed to present the diagnosis as a principal argument in mitigation, and because she waived the argument by failing to object to her sentence apart from the fact that it was above the guidleline range.


Indiana Court of Appeals
Kevin J. Mamon v. State of Indiana
30A01-1301-CR-47
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony resisting law enforcement, Class A misdemeanor criminal recklessness, Class B misdemeanor reckless driving and an enhancement for being a habitual offender. The panel found no grounds for reversal on Mamon’s claim that admitting evidence from a traffic stop for following too closely in a construction zone was fundamental error. Mamon failed to preserve an objection at the trial court, and there is no claim of evidence fabrication or willful malfeasance on the part of law enforcement.

In the Matter of: L.P., a Child Alleged to be a Child in Need of Services, K.K., Mother v. The Indiana Department of Child Services
77A01-1310-JC-427
Juvenile. Reverses determination that L.P. was a child in need of services, holding that a factual finding of an isolated use of methamphetamine, without more, does not support the conclusion of law that L.P. was a CHINS.  

Sheaff Brock Investment Advisors, LLC v. David Morton
29A02-1306-CC-553
Civil collection. Affirms trial court ruling that Sheaff Brock Investment Advisors breached its contract with adviser David Morton and was liable for additional compensation under the Wage Claims Act. Because the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment on those claims, Morton is entitled to appellate attorney fees. The trial court also did not err in entering summary judgment in favor of Sheaff Brock on Morton’s claim on constructive fraud.

Umbrella Family Waiver Services, LLC v. Indiana Family and Social Services Administration
49A02-1306-PL-525
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of Umbrella’s Verified Petition for Judicial Review. Rules the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration followed the terms of the contract by giving a 60-day notice of termination and did not exceed its statutory authority by not providing a reason for the termination.  

Christian Dailey v. David Building Group (NFP)
49A02-1310-CT-906
Civil tort. Affirms trial court order granting summary judgment in favor of Davis Building Group on Christian Dailey’s negligence claim.

North Central Cooperative, Inc. v. John R. Garrison (NFP)
08A02-1304-CT-345
Civil tort. Affirms trial court order granting Garrison’s motion to amend his negligence complaint.

Andre Botley v. Dilmar Sanchez (NFP)
49A05-1311-CT-567
Civil tort. Reverses trial court dismissal of Botley’s negligence claim, remanding with instructions to reinstate the claim.

Trena Marie Gagliardo v. State of Indiana (NFP)
76A03-1306-CR-209
Criminal. Affirms Class C felony conviction of nonsupport of a dependant child.

Lakila Gill v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1307-CR-633
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony attempted murder and reverses sua sponte conviction of Class B felony aggravated battery on double-jeopardy grounds. Remands with instructions to vacate the battery conviction. Gill’s 20-year aggregate sentence is unchanged.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court posted no 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