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 grew up on a farm and live in the county and it's interesting that the big industrial farmers like Jeff Shoaf don't live next to their industrial operations...

  2. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  3. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  4. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  5. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

ADVERTISEMENT