ILNews

Opinions Aug. 5, 2010

August 5, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals

United States of America v. Adam Williams
09-3174
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, Judge James T. Moody.
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for illegal possession of a firearm as a felon and various drug distribution offenses. Williams couldn’t satisfy his burden under either prong of the Strickland standard, so the District Court’s refusal to investigate further his perceived problems with his attorney is a harmless abuse of discretion. Because Williams was convicted of a violent felony, his claim that Section 922(g)(1) unconstitutionally infringes on his right to possess a firearm is without merit.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Alva Curtis v. State of Indiana
49A02-0911-CR-1106
Criminal. Reverses denial of Curtis’ motion to dismiss and discharge criminal proceedings. It is undisputed that he is mentally ill and disabled to an extent that he will never recover and become competent to stand trial. It was a violation of his due process rights to deny his motion.

State of Indiana v. Genaro Luna
09A02-0907-CR-694
Criminal. Affirms acquittal on eight counts of child molesting. Waives state’s question of law about whether the trial court should not have admitted evidence of the victim’s previous allegations of molesting against someone who was not charged. Also, because factual determinations are not appropriate on appeal as a reserved question of law, declines to review the trial court’s decision to admit the evidence.

Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles v. Seth McNeil
02A03-1001-MI-90
Miscellaneous. Reverses order reinstating McNeil’s driving privileges, which had been suspended for 10 years after he was found to be a habitual traffic violator. The two-year statute of limitations under Indiana Code Section 34-11-2-4 does not apply.

Stephanie Deel v. Conrad Deel (NFP)
73A01-0912-CV-606
Civil. Reverses calculation of Conrad Deel’s arrearage. Affirms in all other respects. Remands for further proceedings.

Jerimiah Morris v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A05-1001-CR-16
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony possession of marijuana.

Ellington Jeffrey, et al. v. Kirsh and Kirsh, et al. (NFP)
45A03-1001-CT-31
Civil tort. Affirms trial court properly dismissed the New York law firm for lack of personal jurisdiction in adoption case.

Agnes Jones v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-0912-CR-1283
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor criminal recklessness.

Edward Broadus, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1003-CR-158
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felony forgery, and resisting law enforcement, a Class D felony upon which judgment was entered as a Class A misdemeanor.

Warren Rodrick Bullock v. State of Indiana (NFP)
32A01-0908-CR-401
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony criminal confinement and reverses conviction of Class D felony domestic battery. Remands for trial court to enter a conviction for the lesser included offense of Class A misdemeanor domestic battery and sentence Bullock accordingly.

Billy D. Taylor v. State of Indiana (NFP)
52A05-1002-CR-84
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class C felony sexual misconduct with a minor.

Myron Rickman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
27A04-1002-CR-80
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to eight counts of Class A felony child molesting, one count of Class C felony child molesting, and one count of Class C felony criminal confinement.

R.J. v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development, et al. (NFP)
93A02-1002-EX-243
Civil. Affirms decision that R.J. left work without good cause.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of N.B. and V.B.; S.E.S. v. IDCS (NFP)
18A02-1001-JT-9
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

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