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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT