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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT