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. 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?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT