ILNews

Opinions Aug. 15, 2014

August 15, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion was posted after IL deadline Thursday:
United States of America v. Randall Ray Fletcher Jr.
12-3104
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division. Judge Joseph S. Van Bokkelen.
Criminal. Affirms 30-year sentence in prison plus a lifetime of supervised release following a guilty plea to five counts involving child pornography that occurred over a seven-year period. Because his crimes spanned a range of years during which the guidelines for child pornography offenses underwent significant changes, his sentencing posed complex calculations and raised potential constitutional problems. Any errors the court made in calculating the guidelines sentence for Fletcher were harmless.

Friday’s opinions
Indiana Court of Appeals

Dee Ward v. State of Indiana
49A02-1401-CR-25
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felony battery and Class A misdemeanor domestic battery. The Confrontation Clause does not apply because victim J.M.’s statements to the treating paramedic and forensic nurse were not testimonial and the evidence is sufficient to prove Ward committed the underlying battery by means of a deadly weapon.

Michael Kevin Mallory v. State of Indiana
20A03-1403-MI-76
Miscellaneous. Reverses denial of Mallory’s petition to expunge his Class D felony conviction records. Because the word “shall” is ordinarily construed as mandatory language, I.C. 35-38-9-3(e) unambiguously requires expungement if all statutory requirements are met. Remands with instructions.

Allison I. (Wagaman) DeCloedt v. Shane C. Wagaman
92A03-1401-DR-39
Domestic relation. Affirms dissolution court’s order denying DeCloedt’s motion to relocate and granting Wagaman’s petition to modify custody and parenting time. It is in the best interests of the child to stay in Indiana with his father and future stepsiblings, both sets of grandparents and cousins living nearby.

In the Matter of: S.A. (Minor Child), Child in Need of Services and M.H. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services
49A02-1402-JC-74
Juvenile. Reverses order continuing the adjudication of S.A. as a child in need of services. The evidence does not support that court intervention is required for father to meet S.A.’s needs.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: D.D. (Minor Child) and B.T. (Mother) and D.D. (Father) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
49A02-1312-JT-1027
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Thomas Yoder v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1401-CR-2
Criminal. Reverses part of the sentencing order that restitution for the victim be ordered through a victim-offender reconciliation program instead of determined by the court. Remands for a restitution hearing.

Terry A. Moore v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1401-PC-11
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

J.E. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1312-JV-1053
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication of delinquency based on findings J.E. committed what would be two counts of Class B felony child molesting if committed by an adult.

In Re: The Paternity of R.M.: Laura K. Chivers v. Jeffery L. Marquardt (NFP)
02A05-1310-JP-496
Juvenile. Affirms order modifying custody and parenting time.

Dennis Wireman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
75A03-1312-CR-504
Criminal. Affirms sentence for convictions of three counts of Class D felony illegal possession of a controlled substance, Class D felony illegal possession of a syringe and Class D felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated with a prior conviction.

In the Matter of Q.F. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
03A01-1401-JV-45
Juvenile.  Finds entering true findings of both battery resulting in bodily injury and disorderly conduct violates double jeopardy principles. Remands with instructions to vacate Q.F.’s true finding of disorderly conduct. Affirms true finding of battery resulting in bodily injury.

Marshawn A. Moore v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A04-1312-CR-623
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony burglary.

Debb Durbin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1312-CR-1043
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass.

Stephen W. McIntyre v. State of Indiana (NFP)
35A02-1402-CR-82
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft.

Darnell M. Rias, Sr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A05-1312-CR-630
Criminal. Remands with instructions to vacate Rias’ conviction for Class D felony failure to register as a sex or violent offender due to double jeopardy principles. Affirms second conviction and sentence for Class D felony failure to register as a sex or violent offender as a Class D felony.
 

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT