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

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. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT