ILNews

Opinions Jan. 3, 2012

January 3, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States v. Jason Smith
Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division. U.S. Judge Robert Miller, Jr.
11-2016
Criminal. Affirms District Court’s denial of motion to suppress evidence and motion for acquittal for a man convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm, possessing crack cocaine with intent to deliver and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug transaction. The court rejected arguments that Jason Smith didn’t commit a traffic infraction and that the government constructively amended his indictment about when the traffic stop occurred.

The Indiana Supreme and Indiana Tax Court had issued no opinions by IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Steven Jackson v. State of Indiana
31A01-1109-PC-412
Post conviction. Affirms court’s order partially granting a post-conviction relief petition but denying appellant-defendant’s request to accept a proffered agreement in that PCR proceeding. Holds the post-conviction court wasn’t required to accept the requirement because a PCR proceeding isn’t the equivalent of a civil proceeding and the Indiana Supreme Court has said a post-conviction court has final authority in accepting agreements.

Deborah L. Dysert v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development and the Indiana Supreme Court (NFP)
93A02-1105-EX-392
Civil. Affirms determination of Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development that Dubois County Chief Deputy Prosecutor Deborah Dysert’s employer discharged her for just cause.

Robert O. Broyles v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1103-CR-338
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s aggregate eight-year sentence for a man convicted of voyeurism, child solicitation and sexual misconduct with a minor.

Daniel Minnick v. State of Indiana (NFP)
92A03-1106-CR-228
Criminal. Affirms two misdemeanor drunk driving convictions and a speeding infraction on grounds that sufficient evidence existed and the trial court didn’t violate a defendant’s federal and state rights to confrontation when admitting a breath test instrument into evidence without live testimony from the technician who inspected the device.

Thomas Curry v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1106-CR-551
Criminal. Affirms a Class C felony burglary conviction on grounds that sufficient evidence existed to support the conviction.

Edward Chandler v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1107-PC-396
Post conviction. Affirms the denial of a successive petition for post-conviction relief on grounds that the evidence would lead to an opposite conclusion than that reached by the court.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT