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. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT