ILNews

Opinions Dec. 21, 2010

December 21, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Lawrence Taylor

10-1304
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, Judge Robert L. Miller Jr.
Criminal. Affirms Taylor’s sentences for bank robbery and for violating terms of his supervised release relating to an earlier bank robbery conviction, but orders a limited remand. The District Court erred by treating the policy statement recommendation in U.S.S.G. Section 7B1.3(f) as mandating consecutive sentencing for Taylor’s 2008 bank robbery case and his supervised release case.

Indiana Supreme Court
Anthony D. Delarosa v. State of Indiana
29S00-0911-CR-531
Criminal. On direct appeal, affirms convictions of and sentences of life without parole and one fifty-year sentence for two counts of murder and one count of conspiracy to commit murder.

Indiana Court of Appeals
James McGraw v. State of Indiana
49A04-1004-CR-238
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea to Class B felony dealing in cocaine. McGraw didn’t establish the withdrawal of his plea is necessary to correct a manifest injustice.

Sherene M. Poling v. State of Indiana
90A05-1006-CR-421
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft. The trial court didn’t abuse its discretion by refusing to instruct the jury on criminal conversion because there was no serious evidentiary dispute regarding Poling’s intent to deprive the store of the cigarettes’ value or use. She waived her claim of prosecutorial misconduct and could not show fundamental error.

Paternity of D.L.; C.L. v. Y.B.
88A01-1002-JP-224
Juvenile. Reverses denial of C.L.’s request to be relieved from paying a child support arrearage because a paternity test showed he isn’t D.L.’s biological father. Because C.L.’s paternity was vacated due to mistake of fact, his child support and any arrearage must be terminated. Remands with instructions.

James Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1002-PC-365
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

James Ross v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-0912-CR-710
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation. Remands for determination of whether Ross is entitled to jail time credit.

Tyrone L. Townsell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
89A01-1005-CR-232
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony possession of marijuana.

Douglas N. White v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A05-1004-CR-317
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and imposition of entire suspended sentence.

Ryan Rogers v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A05-1005-CR-265
Criminal. Affirms conviction of neglect of a dependent as a Class B felony.

Christopher M. Sutton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
01A05-1002-CR-75
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony child molesting.

Arenzo Richmond v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1004-CR-449
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentences for confinement, robbery, and attempted robbery, all as Class B felonies. Remands for the trial court to amend the abstract of judgment. Judge Barnes dissents in part.

Rodney Roscoe v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1004-CR-456
Criminal. Affirms convictions of operating a vehicle while intoxicated as a Class A misdemeanor and driving while suspended as a Class A misdemeanor.

D.B. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1004-JV-294
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication as a delinquent for committing what would be Class C felony child molesting, Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, and Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief if committed by an adult.

Chretien Arnold v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1004-CR-210
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class B felony robbery.

Walter Angermeier, et al. v. Indiana Farmers Mutual Ins. Group (NFP)
65A04-1004-PL-230
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment for Indiana Farmers Mutual Insurance Group in Angermeier’s suit that it breached its duty to deal with Angermeier in good faith.  

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

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