ILNews

Opinions Feb. 17, 2014

February 17, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinions were posted after IL deadline Friday:
United States of America v. Steven J. Perry
13-2182
U.S. District court, Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, Judge Robert L. Miller Jr.
Criminal. Vacates Perry’s five-year sentence and the additional conditions of supervision imposed by the court in its written judgment. Remands with instructions to sentence Perry to no more than two years imprisonment for his latest violation of supervised release and to determine Perry’s conditions of supervision. The District Court erred in imposing the mandatory five-year term because the version of 18 U.S.C. Section 3583(k) in effect at the time of his initial offense authorized a maximum sentence of only two years.

United States of America v. Tyler Sanders
13-1301
U.S. District court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Larry J. McKinney.
Criminal. Affirms 120-month sentence following guilty plea to possessing more than 50 grams of cocaine base with intent to distribute. The exclusionary rule does not apply at sentencing. The District judge did not err in following 18 U.S.C. Section 3661 and considering the evidence found during the search of Sander’s home.

Monday’s opinions
Indiana Court of Appeals

Rakiea McCaskill v. State of Indiana
49A02-1306-CR-480
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class A misdemeanor intimidation. The state did not provide sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that McCaskill committed Class A misdemeanor intimidation as charged. The state did produce sufficient evidence that McCaskill committed Class B misdemeanor harassment. Remands to the trial court with instructions to vacate McCaskill’s judgment of conviction for intimidation and to enter a judgment of conviction for McCaskill for Class B misdemeanor harassment.

Northern Indiana Public Service Company v. Edward A. Sloan, Dashawn L. Cole
45A03-1307-SC-254
Small claim. Affirms orders reinstating the driving privileges of Edward Sloan and Dashwan Cole. NIPSCO has not established that the trial court erred as a matter of law when it permitted Sloan and Cole to make installment payments of $50 per month even if the plan would not result in the payment of the judgment in full during the 7-year suspension period. NIPSCO has not made a prima facie showing that equity requires the continued suspension of their driving privileges. NIPSCO waived its argument regarding the trial court’s contacting the BMV by failing to object to that procedure during the hearing.

David Buchanan v. Carol Buchanan (NFP) 
60A01-1304-DR-189
Domestic relation. Affirms property division and valuation of certain property in decree of dissolution.

Aaron M. Fellows v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1305-CR-244
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony burglary resulting in bodily injury and Class B felony attempted robbery resulting in bodily injury.

Jose G. Alejandro v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1306-CR-224
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for attempted murder.

Dominique Brisker v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A04-1307-CR-337
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

William Mosher v. Haesuk Yi Mosher (NFP)
43A05-1305-GU-286
Guardianship. Affirms dismissal of William Mosher’s petition for guardianship of his incapacitated adult daughter for lack of jurisdiction.

$2,500.00 In Lawful United States Currency, 2002 Chevrolet Avalanche, and 1970 Chevrolet El Camino (Demarco D. Hawkins) v. State of Indiana, et al. (NFP)
82A01-1307-MI-326
Miscellaneous. Reverses order granting forfeiture of the Avalanche and El Camino that were seized when Hawkins was arrested for suspicion of dealing in marijuana.

Sonia Long v. City of Logansport, Building Commissioner (NFP)
09A04-1305-PL-249
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment in favor of the city of Logansport requiring Long to comply with a previous order issued by the city to raze a building she owns.

Jason Tye Myers v. Charles R. Deets III, Deets & Kennedy, and Great American Insurance Group (NFP)
79A02-1306-CT-521
Civil tort. Affirms grant of Charles Deets III’s motion to dismiss and grant of Great American Insurance Group’s motion for summary judgment on Myers complaints against them.

Christopher Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1306-CR-301
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony burglary, Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief and determination Smith is a habitual offender.

Lori Harrold v. L & D Mailmasters (NFP)
93A02-1306-EX-564
Agency action. Affirms order of the Worker’s Compensation Board denying Harrold’s application for adjustment of her workers’ compensation claim.

James Christian Warner v. State of Indiana (NFP)
03A01-1305-CR-212
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony attempted inmate fraud.

Barnard Lockett v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1307-CR-653
Criminal. Affirms revocation of community corrections placement.

Michael R. Jent v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A05-1304-PC-217
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Travis Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1307-CR-316
Criminal. Affirms Smith’s convictions of Class B felony failure to stop after an accident resulting in serious bodily injury while intoxicated and Class B misdemeanor failure to stop after an accident resulting in damage to property other than a vehicle, vacates his habitual offender enhancement and remands the case for further proceedings.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals is closed Monday in observance of Presidents Day.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  2. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

  3. From the article's fourth paragraph: "Her work underscores the blurry lines in Russia between the government and businesses . . ." Obviously, the author of this piece doesn't pay much attention to the "blurry lines" between government and businesses that exist in the United States. And I'm not talking only about Trump's alleged conflicts of interest. When lobbyists for major industries (pharmaceutical, petroleum, insurance, etc) have greater access to this country's elected representatives than do everyday individuals (i.e., voters), then I would say that the lines between government and business in the United States are just as blurry, if not more so, than in Russia.

  4. For some strange reason this story, like many on this ezine that question the powerful, seems to have been released in two formats. Prior format here: http://www.theindianalawyer.com/nominees-selected-for-us-attorney-in-indiana/PARAMS/article/44263 That observed, I must note that it is quite refreshing that denizens of the great unwashed (like me) can be allowed to openly question powerful elitists at ICE MILLER who are on the public dole like Selby. Kudos to those at this ezine who understand that they cannot be mere lapdogs to the powerful and corrupt, lest freedom bleed out. If you wonder why the Senator resisted Selby, consider reading the comments here for a theory: http://www.theindianalawyer.com/nominees-selected-for-us-attorney-in-indiana/PARAMS/article/44263

  5. Why is it a crisis that people want to protect their rights themselves? The courts have a huge bias against people appearing on their own behalf and these judges and lawyers will face their maker one day and answer for their actions.

ADVERTISEMENT