ILNews

Opinions Feb. 22, 2011

February 22, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Roger D. Slone
09-4089
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, Judge Rudy Lozano.
Criminal. Affirms conviction of conspiracy to distribute marijuana and sentence of 120 months in prison. The search incident to his arrest was reasonable and the vehicle evidence was properly admitted against him.

United States of America v. James Guyton

09-3866
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, Judge Rudy Lozano.
Criminal. Affirms denial of Guyton’s motion for a sentence reduction. He was sentenced for a crack-cocaine offense before the U.S. Supreme Court held that the sentencing guidelines were advisory, and his applicable guideline range was established on the basis of his career-offender status before he received a substantial assistance departure. Thus, Amendment 706, which left the career-offender guideline unchanged, did not affect his applicable guideline range and he didn’t qualify for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. Section 3582(c)(2).


Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Allstate Insurance Company v. Gary R. Love
32A01-1005-CT-239
Civil tort. Affirms the trial court properly denied Allstate’s request to set aside default judgment entered in favor of Love. Love’s counsel did not commit misconduct when he failed to notify Dietrick before seeking default judgment against Allstate because he didn’t know Dietrick represented Allstate on this claim. The trial court’s award of $255,000 to Love was interlocutory and therefore Allstate may still appear and be heard as to the amount of damages resulting from the judgment. Remands for a hearing on the damages award.

Craig Dennis v. Board of Public Safety of Fort Wayne, Indiana
02A03-1007-PL-379
Civil plenary. Reverses order of dismissal of Fort Wayne police officer Dennis’ complaint for judicial review after the Board of Public Safety denied his request for back pay. His indefinite unpaid leave pending the outcome of the criminal charge was a suspension of greater than five days, thus subject to judicial review. The board’s decision became final when it denied Dennis’ request for back pay, such that his complaint for judicial review was timely filed. Remands for further proceedings.

James C. Taylor v. State of Indiana
02A03-1003-CR-194
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for Class A felony burglary; Class B felony criminal deviate conduct; Class B felony attempted rape; jury verdict he is guilty but mentally ill of a second charge of criminal deviate conduct and of Class D felony sexual battery; and jury determination that he is a habitual offender. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to give the tendered instruction on residential entry. The state established a foundation for the admission of a letter Taylor wrote to an Allen County judge pursuant to Indiana Rule of Evidence 901 and the court did not abuse its discretion by admitting it.

Keith Hoglund v. State of Indiana
90A02-1005-CR-591
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class A felony child molesting. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting testimony that indirectly vouched for A.H.’s credibility and he was properly sentenced. Judge Darden concurs in result.

State of Indiana v. Andy J. Velasquez, II
53A05-1003-CR-194
Criminal. Affirms there was no abuse of discretion in the giving of a preliminary instruction pursuant to Evidence Rules 105 and 404(b). The trial court erred in excluding the testimony of witnesses under Evidence Rules 802 and 704(b). Double jeopardy principles bar a second trial as Velasquez was acquitted of Class A felony child molesting and Class C felony child molesting.

Paul J. Kocielko v. State of Indiana
20A03-1002-CR-218
Criminal. Grants rehearing and affirms the decision of the trial court in all respects, except the 30-year habitual offender enhancement imposed upon the Class C felony conviction of sexual misconduct with a minor. Instructs the trial court to vacate this enhancement because Kocielko’s Class B felony sentence was so enhanced.

Jamie Escobedo v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A04-1004-CR-300
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass.

Robert D. Neal, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
60A05-1009-CR-596
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony receiving stolen property and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Naugle Gibson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1007-CR-404
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor domestic battery.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of L.S.; A.S. v. IDCS (NFP)
02A03-1007-JT-385
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parent-child relationship.

Gregory Preyer v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A05-1007-CR-397
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass.

Larry Burdette (deceased) v. Perlman-Rocque Company (NFP)
93A02-1007-EX-770
Civil. Affirms denial of application for adjustment of claim.

Elizabeth S. Mathias v. State of Indiana (NFP)
35A02-1009-CR-1079
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Leo Machine & Tool, Inc., et al. v. Gary M. Gerardot (NFP)

02A03-1006-PL-365
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment that Geradot had no notice of a defect in the electrical wiring of the premises he owned, and thus did not owe Leo Machine and other appellants a duty to maintain and repair the premises’ electrical system. Affirms denial of the appellants’ motions for sanctions for spoliation of evidence against Geradot.

Anthony McCoy v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1007-CR-746
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony robbery, Class A misdemeanor criminal recklessness and Class A misdemeanor intimidation.

In the Matter of T.R., Alleged to be CHINS; S.S. & R.R. v. IDCS (NFP)
52A05-1008-JC-544
Juvenile. Affirms determination T.R. is a child in need of services. Remands with instructions for the court to issue an amended dispositional order which includes written reasons and findings for the disposition based upon the evidence presented at the fact-finding and dispositional hearings in accordance with Indiana Code Section 31-34-19-10.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  3. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  4. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  5. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

ADVERTISEMENT