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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT