ILNews

Opinions Jan. 11, 2017

January 11, 2017
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Stephen H. Perron and the United States Bankruptcy Trustee for the Southern District of Indiana on behalf of Christine M. Jackson v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank N.A.
15-2206
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. Judge Tanya Walton Pratt.
Civil. Affirms summary judgment for Chase Bank in ex-couple Perron and Jackson’s lawsuit claiming the bank’s response to a misapplied insurance payment, seeking more than $300,000 in damages, caused their divorce. To the extent that any requested information was missing, Perron and Jackson suffered no actual damages and thus have no viable claim, nor did the bank breach the duty of good faith and fair dealing.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Dominique Castillo v. State of Indiana
31A01-1604-CR-742
Criminal. Affirms the revocation of Dominique Castillo’s probation and order that he serve the whole of his suspended sentence, which was four years in the Indiana Department of Correction with 2 ½ years suspended. Finds given Castillo’s blatant disregard for the terms of his probation, the Harrison Superior Court was well within its discretion to sanction him by ordering him to serve his previously suspended sentence. Also finds the trial court did not consider inappropriate testimony and, thus, did not abuse its discretion.

Fernando J. Alvarez, Jr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
02A04-1608-CR-1766
Criminal. Affirms Fernando Alvarez Jr.’s sentence to 2 ½ years for invasion of privacy as a Level 6 felony. Finds Alvarez has not met his burden of establishing that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character.

Alisha M. King v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
02A03-1606-CR-1387
Criminal. Affirms Alisha King’s aggregate four-year sentence for Level 6 felony possession of a synthetic drug or lookalike substance and Level 6 felony possession of paraphernalia. Finds King’s sentence is not inappropriate and that she has waived her argument with respect to the probation revocation sentence under cause number F6-79.

Billy T. Reames v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
20A03-1606-CR-1332
Criminal. Affirms Billy Reames’ conviction for Level 3 felony robbery while armed with a deadly weapon, the finding that he is an habitual offender and his sentence to 12 years, with one year suspended, and enhanced by 10 years for the habitual-offender finding. Finds there is sufficient evidence to sustain Reames’ conviction and that his sentence is not inappropriate.

Zachary Poteet v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
49A02-1606-CR-1196
Criminal. Affirms Zachary Poteet’s conviction of public intoxication as a Class B misdemeanor. Finds there is sufficient evidence from which the Marion Superior Court could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that Poteet harassed, annoyed or alarmed the officers.

John Webb v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
49A02-1603-CR-632
Criminal. Affirms John Webb’s conviction of murder and sentence to 62 years. Finds the evidence is sufficient and his sentence is not inappropriate.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  2. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  3. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  4. Different rules for different folks....

  5. I would strongly suggest anyone seeking mediation check the experience of the mediator. There are retired judges who decide to become mediators. Their training and experience is in making rulings which is not the point of mediation.

ADVERTISEMENT