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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT