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. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT