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

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT