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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT