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. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  2. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  3. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  4. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  5. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

ADVERTISEMENT