ILNews

Opinions Feb. 7, 2013

February 7, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Jurijus Kadamovas v. Michael Stevens, et al.
12-2669
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Terre Haute Division, Judge William T. Lawrence.
Civil. Reverses dismissal of prisoner Kadamovas’ lawsuit against prison officials and other inmates for unintelligibility. The suit is actually written clearly and not 99 pages as the judge believed, but just 28 pages. Remands for further consideration.

United States of America v. Adolfo Wren and Anthony Moton
12-1565, 12-1580
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, Judge Rudy Lozano, Judge James T. Moody.
Criminal. Vacates denial of Wren’s and Moton’s request for a sentence reduction for previous crack offenses and remands to the District Court so the judges may exercise the discretion they possess.

United States of America v. Ronald Love
11-2547
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, Judge Joseph S. Van Bokkelen.
Criminal. Affirms Love’s convictions of distributing crack cocaine and conspiring to distribute crack cocaine. Vacates his sentence and remands for resentencing under the Fair Sentencing Act. Finds evidence was enough to support the jury verdict and to support a two-level sentencing enhancement for being an organizer, leader, manager or supervisor of the conspiracy.

Bernard Hawkins v. United States of America
11-1245
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, Judge James T. Moody.
Civil. Affirms judgment denying the Section 2255 motion authorizing post-conviction alteration of a sentence filed by Hawkins. An erroneous computation of an advisory guidelines sentence is reversible (unless harmless) on direct appeal; it doesn’t follow that it’s reversible years later in a post-conviction proceeding. Judge Rovner dissents.

Indiana Court of Appeals
State of Indiana v. William Coats
49A02-1206-CR-526
Criminal. Affirms denial of state’s motion to commit Coats to the Indiana Division of Mental Health and Addiction. It is clear that Coats’ dementia will progress and there is simply no hope or medical reason to believe that competency will be restored. Judge Riley dissents.

Christina M. Kovats v. State of Indiana
15A01-1205-CR-224
Criminal. Orders the trial court to vacate Kovats’ convictions for Class D felony criminal recklessness and Class D felony OWI and enter a judgment of conviction and concurrent sentence on the lesser-included offense of Class A misdemeanor OWI because those convictions were based on or elevated by the same serious bodily injury. Orders her sentence revised to 15 years on the Class B felony conviction of neglect of a dependent.

Terry Smith v. State of Indiana
49A05-1202-CR-88
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony robbery, Class B felony possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, Class D felony auto theft, and Class D felony resisting law enforcement. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the state’s motion to continue so that the state could procure the testimony of a necessary witness. The trial court also did not abuse its discretion in the admission of the evidence regarding the shots fired and casings found, the evidence obtained during the execution of the search warrant, or the DNA evidence obtained from the buccal swab. Lastly, the state presented evidence sufficient to support the trial court’s determination that Smith was a habitual offender.

Christopher Estridge v. State of Indiana (NFP)

15A01-1205-CR-209
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Kenneth L. Robinson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1206-CR-514
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony possession of cocaine.

Charles Day v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A04-1206-CR-303
Criminal. Affirms convictions of three counts of Class A felony child molesting and two counts as Class C felonies, Class A felony attempted child molesting and Class D felony child solicitation; and affirms sentence of 44 years in the Department of Correction.

Kenny L. Futch v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1209-CR-381
Criminal. Affirms two convictions of Class B felony dealing in cocaine and two concurrent 17-year sentences with two years suspended to probation on each count.

James Kerner v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1205-CR-271
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor trespass.

Jamie Masterson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1206-CR-485
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony identity deception.

In Re: The Adoption of T.W.: T.J. v. J.B. (NFP)
02A05-1108-AD-451
Adoption. Affirms that consent of father T.J. is not required for adoption of T.W.

Prince Harris v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1205-CR-232
Criminal. Affirms convictions of murder and robbery.

Larry R. Dean, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
27A04-1204-PC-174
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Anthony Paul Banks v. State of Indiana (NFP)
50A05-1207-CR-343
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and order Banks serve his entire previously suspended sentence in the Department of Correction.

In Re: The Paternity of B.H.: S.H. v. B.B. (NFP)
54A01-1208-JP-340
Juvenile. Affirms order modifying father S.H.’s child support obligation based on a determination hearing that the child is incapacitated.

Neff Family Fertilizer, Inc. v. John Jones Chevrolet Buick Cadillac of Salem, Inc. (NFP)
88A05-1207-PL-381
Civil plenary. Affirms entry of summary judgment in favor of John Jones dealership on Neff Family Fertilizer’s suit for damages after Neff canceled its order for a new truck.  

Gregory D. Sutton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
01A02-1210-CR-876
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class C felony nonsupport of a dependent child.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court 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. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT