ILNews

Opinions Aug. 19, 2014

August 19, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinions were posted after IL deadline Monday:
United States of America v. Kenneth Jones, Ramone Mockabee, Devon Young and Elisha Drake
11-2267, 11-2288, 11-2535, 11-2687
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Sarah Evans Barker.
Criminal. Affirms cocaine distribution and other drug convictions of Jones, Drake and Young after a jury trial, but vacates the sentences of Mockabee, who pleaded guilty, Jones and Drake and remands their cases for resentencing.  The trial court did not err in denying Jones’ motion to suppress evidence found at his house after a search warrant was executed. There is sufficient evidence to support their convictions, but there are sentencing errors related to Mockabee, Jones and Drake.

United States of America v. Juan Carlos Adame-Hernandez
12-1268
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. Judge Sarah Evans Barker.
Criminal. Vacates Adame-Hernandez’s conviction and 300-month sentence under a second guilty plea for criminal drug conspiracy and remands with instructions to allow him to maintain his original guilty plea and be sentenced under the parties’ written plea agreement executed Jan. 3, 2011. Circuit Rule 36 applies on remand. The District Court did not follow the procedures under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Indiana Court of Appeals
In the Matter of the Adoption of M.H., W.M. & S.K. v. N.B. & R.B.
82A01-1310-AD-449
Adoption.  Affirms order denying W.M. and S.K.’s petition for adoption of M.H. and granting the petition of adoption filed by R.B. and N.B. The appellants did not overcome the presumption that the judge acted impartially when he ruled in favor of N.B. and R.B. The judge received an email from a former fraternity brother in favor of the adoptive family, but he refused to recuse himself in the case because he said he would not consider the person’s argument, stopped reading the email quickly, and had not recently socialized or interacted with the fraternity brother. Finds evidence supports adoption by N.B. and R.B. in the best interests of the child.

Lisa B. Gonzalez v. R. Stanton Evans
29A02-1311-DR-984
Domestic relation.  Reverses award of $8,289.33 in attorney fees to Evans. The attorney fees awarded to Evans exceeds the bounds of what is contemplated by Trial Rule 34(C)(3.) There was no reasonable resistance related to Gonzalez’s subpoena by Evans and he was not entitled to any attorney fees related to such resistance. Remands for a determination of how much Evans actually incurred in relation to his compliance with the subpoena, excluding such fees related to his months-long effort to avoid providing the documents to Gonzalez. Finds Gonzalez waived her claim to attorney fees.

Eric T. Shamblin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1311-CR-994
Criminal.  Affirms conviction of Class A felony attempted child molesting and finding Shamblin is a sexually violent predator.

Sean D. Monroe v. State of Indiana (NFP)
39A01-1401-CR-28
Criminal. Affirms Monroe’s eight-year sentence following a guilty plea to Class C felony operating a motor vehicle with a controlled substance listed in Schedule I or II in his blood and Class D felony reckless homicide. Remands for the trial court to correct a clerical error in the abstract of judgment.

In the Matter of the Parent Child Relationship of: M.G. (Minor Child), and S.B. (Father) v. Marion County Department of Child Services (NFP)
49A02-1312-JT-1028
Juvenile.  Affirms termination of parental rights.

 

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT