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. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT