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. Hi there I really need help with getting my old divorce case back into court - I am still paying support on a 24 year old who has not been in school since age 16 - now living independent. My visitation with my 14 year old has never been modified; however, when convenient for her I can have him... I am paying past balance from over due support, yet earn several thousand dollars less. I would contact my original attorney but he basically molest me multiple times in Indy when I would visit.. Todd Woodmansee - I had just came out and had know idea what to do... I have heard he no longer practices. Please help1

  2. Yes diversity is so very important. With justice Rucker off ... the court is too white. Still too male. No Hispanic justice. No LGBT justice. And there are other checkboxes missing as well. This will not do. I say hold the seat until a physically handicapped Black Lesbian of Hispanic heritage and eastern religious creed with bipolar issues can be located. Perhaps an international search, with a preference for third world candidates, is indicated. A non English speaker would surely increase our diversity quotient!!!

  3. First, I want to thank Justice Rucker for his many years of public service, not just at the appellate court level for over 25 years, but also when he served the people of Lake County as a Deputy Prosecutor, City Attorney for Gary, IN, and in private practice in a smaller, highly diverse community with a history of serious economic challenges, ethnic tensions, and recently publicized but apparently long-standing environmental health risks to some of its poorest residents. Congratulations for having the dedication & courage to practice law in areas many in our state might have considered too dangerous or too poor at different points in time. It was also courageous to step into a prominent and highly visible position of public service & respect in the early 1990's, remaining in a position that left you open to state-wide public scrutiny (without any glitches) for over 25 years. Yes, Hoosiers of all backgrounds can take pride in your many years of public service. But people of color who watched your ascent to the highest levels of state government no doubt felt even more as you transcended some real & perhaps some perceived social, economic, academic and professional barriers. You were living proof that, with hard work, dedication & a spirit of public service, a person who shared their same skin tone or came from the same county they grew up in could achieve great success. At the same time, perhaps unknowingly, you helped fellow members of the judiciary, court staff, litigants and the public better understand that differences that are only skin-deep neither define nor limit a person's character, abilities or prospects in life. You also helped others appreciate that people of different races & backgrounds can live and work together peacefully & productively for the greater good of all. Those are truths that didn't have to be written down in court opinions. Anyone paying attention could see that truth lived out every day you devoted to public service. I believe you have been a "trailblazer" in Indiana's legal community and its judiciary. I also embrace your belief that society's needs can be better served when people in positions of governmental power reflect the many complexions of the population that they serve. Whether through greater understanding across the existing racial spectrum or through the removal of some real and some perceived color-based, hope-crushing barriers to life opportunities & success, movement toward a more reflective representation of the population being governed will lead to greater and uninterrupted respect for laws designed to protect all peoples' rights to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness. Thanks again for a job well-done & for the inevitable positive impact your service has had - and will continue to have - on countless Hoosiers of all backgrounds & colors.

  4. Diversity is important, but with some limitations. For instance, diversity of experience is a great thing that can be very helpful in certain jobs or roles. Diversity of skin color is never important, ever, under any circumstance. To think that skin color changes one single thing about a person is patently racist and offensive. Likewise, diversity of values is useless. Some values are better than others. In the case of a supreme court justice, I actually think diversity is unimportant. The justices are not to impose their own beliefs on rulings, but need to apply the law to the facts in an objective manner.

  5. Have been seeing this wonderful physician for a few years and was one of his patients who told him about what we were being told at CVS. Multiple ones. This was a witch hunt and they shold be ashamed of how patients were treated. Most of all, CVS should be ashamed for what they put this physician through. So thankful he fought back. His office is no "pill mill'. He does drug testing multiple times a year and sees patients a minimum of four times a year.

ADVERTISEMENT