ILNews

Opinions Dec. 3, 2012

December 3, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
U.S. v. Jwuan L. Moreland, Antrio B. Hammond, Wesley S. Hammond, Susie A. Smith, Herbert D. Phipps, David J. Pitts, Bradley S. Shelton, Michael D. Weir and Timothy Bailey
11-2546, 11-2552, 11-2632, 11-2633, 11-2696, 11-3146, 11-3319, 11-3321, 11-3367
Criminal. Affirms convictions and varying sentences for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and marijuana, as well as for felons in possession of a firearm for two defendants. The circuit court made separate findings of fact for each defendant in affirming the convictions and sentence.

Indiana Court of Appeals
State of Indiana v. Terry J. Hough
64A05-1203-MI-113
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s grant of a petition that Hough’s name be removed from the Indiana Sex Offender Registry, holding that requiring him to register for a Pennsylvania rape committed before the establishment of the registry would violate the Indiana Constitution’s prohibition of ex post facto laws.

Mark Graber v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1205-CR-365
Criminal. Vacates and remands to the trial court with instructions to clarify the chronological case summary. The court is to enter an order confirming that a single public defender fee of $50 was imposed at the initial hearing and all sums previously paid are credited against that amount due and owing.

Monica Leigh Fortner v. Paul Leon Fortner, III (NFP)
84A01-1204-DR-162
Domestic relations/custody. Affirms award of joint custody of the Fortners’ 2-year-old daughter, S.F.


 

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT