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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT