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. 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