ILNews

Opinions Feb. 10, 2014

February 10, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
The following opinion was issued after IL deadline Friday.
United States of America v. Timmothy Williams
13-1260
Criminal. Vacates sentence for convictions related to identity theft and remands to the District Court. In accordance with the ruling in Peugh v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2072, 2078 (2013), sentencing guidelines that were stricter than those in place at the time Williams committed the crime were improperly applied when he was sentenced to 56 months in prison for identity theft convictions plus 24 months for aggravated identity theft. Remands to sentence Williams to 30 to 37 months in prison – the range under the guidelines in place at the time of his offenses.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Amy R. Hockett v. State of Indiana (NFP)
89A05-1304-CR-174
Criminal. Affirms conviction and 60-year sentence for murder.

Jonathon Harris v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1307-CR-655
Criminal. Affirms probation revocation.

Jeffery L. Fleenor, Sr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
88A01-1307-CR-296
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea to a charge of Class B felony possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon.

Larry K. Croucher II v. State of Indiana (NFP)
05A02-1302-CR-172
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony maintaining a common nuisance.

Darin M. Wilson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
84A01-1309-CR-382
Criminal. Affirms 40-year sentence for conviction of Class B felony robbery and habitual offender enhancement.

Charles Thompson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A05-1211-CR-578
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony dealing in methamphetamine and two Class D felony counts of possession of a controlled substance.

Aguila Binion v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A05-1306-CR-292
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony strangulation.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court issued to opinions prior to IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no opinions Monday prior to IL deadline.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Bob Stochel was opposing counsel to me in several federal cases (including a jury trial before Judge Tinder) here in SDIN. He is a very competent defense and trial lawyer who knows federal civil procedure and consumer law quite well. Bob gave us a run for our money when he appeared on a case.

  2. Awesome, Brian! Very proud of you and proud to have you as a partner!

  3. Oh, the name calling was not name calling, it was merely social commentary making this point, which is on the minds of many, as an aside to the article's focus: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100111082327AAmlmMa Or, if you prefer a local angle, I give you exhibit A in that analysis of viva la difference: http://fox59.com/2015/03/16/moed-appears-on-house-floor-says-hes-not-resigning/

  4. Too many attorneys take their position as a license to intimidate and threaten non attorneys in person and by mail. Did find it ironic that a reader moved to comment twice on this article could not complete a paragraph without resorting to insulting name calling (rethuglican) as a substitute for reasoned discussion. Some people will never get the point this action should have made.

  5. People have heard of Magna Carta, and not the Provisions of Oxford & Westminster. Not that anybody really cares. Today, it might be considered ethnic or racial bias to talk about the "Anglo Saxon common law." I don't even see the word English in the blurb above. Anyhow speaking of Edward I-- he was famously intolerant of diversity himself viz the Edict of Expulsion 1290. So all he did too like making parliament a permanent institution-- that all must be discredited. 100 years from now such commemorations will be in the dustbin of history.

ADVERTISEMENT