ILNews

Opinions Jan. 31, 2014

January 31, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion was posted after IL deadline Thursday.

United States of America v. Scott Adkins 
12-3738, 12-3739
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division. Chief Judge Philip P. Simon.
Criminal. Affirms conviction of attempting to possess heroin with intent to distribute and being a felon in possession of a firearm. Rejects Adkins’ claim he is entitled to a new trial on these charges due to alleged errors regarding evidentiary decisions, jury instructions and improper statements by the government. Vacates guilty plea to receipt of child pornography because one special condition of his supervised release – that he “shall not view or listen to any pornography or sexually stimulating material or sexually oriented material or patronize locations where such material is available” – is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. Remands on this ground alone.  

Friday’s opinions
7th Circuit Court of Appeals

United States of America v. Timothy L. Richards
12-3763
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, Judge Theresa L. Springmann.
Criminal. Affirms convictions of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, maintaining a residence or place for the purpose of using and distributing controlled substances, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. There was no error in allowing the government to introduce seized evidence, finding Richards’ 86-year-old uncle had authority to consent to a search of the bedroom where Richards stayed.

Indiana Court of Appeals
T.G. v. State of Indiana
49A05-1305-JV-238
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication that T.G. committed what would be Class C felony child molesting if committed by an adult. The evidence is sufficient and the statute is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to him.

William E. Boehringer, Cleo A. Boehringer, and the Cleo A. Boehringer Trust v. Gregory J. Weber and Susan M. Weber
29A05-1303-PL-154
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of the Boehringers’ summary judgment claim and $425,000 jury award to the Webers. The Boehringers sued the Webers after discovering mold in the house they purchased from the Webers. The Webers counterclaimed for costs and reasonable attorney fees for defending the complaint. The designated evidence does not establish that the Webers actually knew of the presence of hazardous mold in the house when they executed the sales disclosure.

Rashard Ranson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1307-CR-329
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Christopher Wood v. State of Indiana (NFP)
33A01-1310-MI-430
Miscellaneous. Affirms denial of habeas corpus petition alleging that Wood was erroneously denied 49 days of presentencing credit time.

Rolando Guzman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A04-1309-CR-474
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony domestic battery.

Joshua Gillespie v. State of Indiana (NFP)
27A02-1304-CR-374
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony burglary and Class C felony robbery.

Matthew Dante Bennett v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A02-1306-CR-515
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony aggravated battery, Class B felony armed robbery and Class D felony auto theft.

Donald A. Wood v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A01-1306-CR-288
Criminal. Affirms order revoking probation and order that Wood serve six years of his previously suspended sentence.

Sharniece Crump v. Claystone at the Crossing (NFP)
79A02-1308-SC-674
Small claim. Affirms small claims court’s decision to uphold the eviction of Crump.

Christian D. Reyes v. State of Indiana (NFP)
57A03-1305-CR-176
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class B felony burglary.

Juan Q. Beamon v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1307-CR-599
Crimimal. Affirms sentence for Class C felony sexual misconduct with a minor and adjudication as a habitual offender.

Cameron Mayfield v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1306-CR-500
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony battery on a pregnant woman.

A.S.B. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1307-JV-665
Juvenile. Affirms modification of dispositional decree.

Marcus Jones v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A04-1305-CR-251
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.  

T.G. v. State of Indiana
49A05-1305-JV-238
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication that T.G. committed what would be Class C felony child molesting if committed by an adult. The evidence is sufficient and the statute is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to him.

Marcus Minor v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1306-CR-301
Criminal. Vacates conviction for Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Nathan Allen Kline v. State of Indiana (NFP)
35A02-1307-CR-573
Criminal. Vacates conviction and sentence for Class D felony operating an illegal drug lab. Affirms Kline was not denied effective assistance of trial counsel and affirms conviction and sentence for Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine.

In Re: The Marriage of Mikiko Hige v. Christopher L. Glick (NFP)
79A02-1303-DR-274
Domestic relation. Affirms dissolution of marriage.

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of Mi.S. & M.W. (Minor Children), and M.S. (Mother) v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
49A05-1306-JT-282
Juvenile tort. Affirms termination of parental rights to two of mother’s six children.

Allan Kirkley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
28A04-1307-CR-362
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for two counts of Class C felony child molesting.

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

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  2. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

  3. This law is troubling in two respects: First, why wasn't the law reviewed "with the intention of getting all the facts surrounding the legislation and its actual impact on the marketplace" BEFORE it was passed and signed? Seems a bit backwards to me (even acknowledging that this is the Indiana state legislature we're talking about. Second, what is it with the laws in this state that seem to create artificial monopolies in various industries? Besides this one, the other law that comes to mind is the legislation that governed the granting of licenses to firms that wanted to set up craft distilleries. The licensing was limited to only those entities that were already in the craft beer brewing business. Republicans in this state talk a big game when it comes to being "business friendly". They're friendly alright . . . to certain businesses.

  4. Gretchen, Asia, Roberto, Tonia, Shannon, Cheri, Nicholas, Sondra, Carey, Laura ... my heart breaks for you, reaching out in a forum in which you are ignored by a professional suffering through both compassion fatigue and the love of filthy lucre. Most if not all of you seek a warm blooded Hoosier attorney unafraid to take on the government and plead that government officials have acted unconstitutionally to try to save a family and/or rescue children in need and/or press individual rights against the Leviathan state. I know an attorney from Kansas who has taken such cases across the country, arguing before half of the federal courts of appeal and presenting cases to the US S.Ct. numerous times seeking cert. Unfortunately, due to his zeal for the constitutional rights of peasants and willingness to confront powerful government bureaucrats seemingly violating the same ... he was denied character and fitness certification to join the Indiana bar, even after he was cleared to sit for, and passed, both the bar exam and ethics exam. And was even admitted to the Indiana federal bar! NOW KNOW THIS .... you will face headwinds and difficulties in locating a zealously motivated Hoosier attorney to face off against powerful government agents who violate the constitution, for those who do so tend to end up as marginalized as Paul Odgen, who was driven from the profession. So beware, many are mere expensive lapdogs, the kind of breed who will gladly take a large retainer, but then fail to press against the status quo and powers that be when told to heel to. It is a common belief among some in Indiana that those attorneys who truly fight the power and rigorously confront corruption often end up, actually or metaphorically, in real life or at least as to their careers, as dead as the late, great Gary Welch. All of that said, I wish you the very best in finding a Hoosier attorney with a fighting spirit to press your rights as far as you can, for you do have rights against government actors, no matter what said actors may tell you otherwise. Attorneys outside the elitist camp are often better fighters that those owing the powers that be for their salaries, corner offices and end of year bonuses. So do not be afraid to retain a green horn or unconnected lawyer, many of them are fine men and woman who are yet untainted by the "unique" Hoosier system.

  5. I am not the John below. He is a journalist and talk show host who knows me through my years working in Kansas government. I did no ask John to post the note below ...

ADVERTISEMENT