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. Other than a complete lack of any verifiable and valid historical citations to back your wild context-free accusations, you also forget to allege "ate Native American children, ate slave children, ate their own children, and often did it all while using salad forks rather than dinner forks." (gasp)

  2. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  3. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  4. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  5. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

ADVERTISEMENT