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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's an appreciable step taken by the government to curb the child abuse that are happening in the schools. Employees in the schools those are selected without background check can not be trusted. A thorough background check on the teachers or any other other new employees must be performed to choose the best and quality people. Those who are already employed in the past should also be checked for best precaution. The future of kids can be saved through this simple process. However, the checking process should be conducted by the help of a trusted background checking agency(https://www.affordablebackgroundchecks.com/).

  2. Almost everything connects to internet these days. From your computers and Smartphones to wearable gadgets and smart refrigerators in your home, everything is linked to the Internet. Although this convenience empowers usto access our personal devices from anywhere in the world such as an IP camera, it also deprives control of our online privacy. Cyber criminals, hackers, spies and everyone else has realized that we don’t have complete control on who can access our personal data. We have to take steps to to protect it like keeping Senseless password. Dont leave privacy unprotected. Check out this article for more ways: https://www.purevpn.com/blog/data-privacy-in-the-age-of-internet-of-things/

  3. You need to look into Celadon not paying sign on bonuses. We call get the run

  4. My parents took advantage of the fact that I was homeless in 2012 and went to court and got Legal Guardianship I my 2 daughters. I am finally back on my feet and want them back, but now they want to fight me on it. I want to raise my children and have them almost all the time on the weekends. Mynparents are both almost 70 years old and they play favorites which bothers me a lot. Do I have a leg to stand on if I go to court to terminate lehal guardianship? My kids want to live with me and I want to raise them, this was supposed to be temporary, and now it is turning into a fight. Ridiculous

  5. Here's my two cents. While in Texas in 2007 I was not registered because I only had to do it for ten years. So imagine my surprise as I find myself forced to register in Texas because indiana can't get their head out of their butt long enough to realize they passed an ex post facto law in 2006. So because Indiana had me listed as a failure to register Texas said I had to do it there. Now if Indiana had done right by me all along I wouldn't need the aclu to defend my rights. But such is life.

ADVERTISEMENT