ILNews

Opinions Dec. 5, 2012

December 5, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Gregory Wolfe
11-3281
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, Judge Rudy Lozano.
Criminal. Affirms convictions of bank theft and interstate transportation of stolen goods for Wolfe’s role in a copper theft scheme and his 88-month sentence, followed by concurrent three-year terms of supervised release, and order of more than $3 million in restitution. Wolfe argued that he was deprived of a fair trial because of statements the prosecutor made during closing argument. He also challenged the sentence and restitution order. Wolfe’s contentions lack merit.

Indiana Court of Appeals
In Re the Name Change of John William Resnover and In Re the Name Change of John Arthur Herron
49A02-1205-MI-364
Miscellaneous. Reverses denial of Resnover’s and Herron’s petitions to change their names. The trial court erred when it required a valid driver’s license or valid state ID card as a prerequisite to grant the petition for name change pursuant to I.C. 34-28-2. Remands for further proceedings. Judge Crone dissents in part.

Trenton Teague v. State of Indiana
89A01-1202-CR-86
Criminal. Affirms convictions and sentences for Class A felony burglary and Class C felony battery. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting a 911 call and Teague’s aggregate, executed sentence of 40 years is appropriate. Judge Barnes concurs in result.

Bret Lee Sisson v. State of Indiana
09A02-1102-CR-199
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony burglary, Class B felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, receiving stolen property as a Class D felony and adjudication as a habitual offender. There was no fundamental error when the state refiled the previously dismissed SVF charge and habitual offender allegation after Sisson’s first trial ended in a mistrial due to jury deadlock, and the trial court did not err in denying his motion for change of judge for sentencing purposes only. Affirms in all other respects.

Adoption of K.S., A Minor Child: A.S. and D.S. v. C.Z.
85A04-1205-AD-243
Adoption. Reverses denial of verified petition for adoption of K.S. and remands for further proceedings. The trial court erred in concluding that the natural mother’s consent to the adoption of her minor child by stepmother was required.  

Mitchell Burton v. State of Indiana
71A03-1203-CR-129
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class D felony resisting law enforcement and remands for the trial court to vacate. The trial court abused its discretion in refusing to give Burton’s tendered self-defense and resistance of unlawful force instructions.

Tarique Henderson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1202-CR-50
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony attempted murder and Class B felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon.
 
Agustin Martinez v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1203-CR-197
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class C felony child molesting.

Kamari Hogue, A Minor, By and Through His Parent And Next Friend, Trent Hogue v. Robert Critz, Jr. (NFP)
02A05-1204-CT-192
Civil tort. Affirms jury verdict in Critz’s favor on Houge’s suit for negligence.

Robert D. Rogers, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A05-1204-CR-211
Criminal. Affirms conviction of failure to register as offender, elevated to a Class C felony as a result of a previous conviction for failure to register.

Mahamat Outman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1204-CR-197
Criminal. Affirms application of the credit restricted felon statute to Outman’s conviction for Class A felony child molesting as alleged in Count III was not an ex post facto violation.

Kelvin Whitby v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1205-CR-226
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class D felony domestic battery.

First Chicago Insurance Company v. Philip Hempel, Farm Bureau Insurance Company of Michigan, and American Transportation on Time, Inc. (NFP)
71A03-1202-PL-64
Civil plenary. Affirms dismissal of First Chicago’s complaint for declaratory judgment. The trial court did not err in dismissing the declaratory judgment action on principles of comity.

Susan Edwards v. Deutsche Bank National, Trust Company (NFP)
02A03-1201-MF-24
Mortgage foreclosure. Affirms summary judgment in favor of the bank in the bank’s in rem action against real property owned by Edwards.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: A.T., Minor Child, M.T., Father v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
42A04-1203-JT-118
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of father’s parental rights.

Herman Gehl, II v. State of Indiana (NFP)
13A01-1203-CR-92
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to two counts of Class D felony invasion of privacy.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT