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. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT