ILNews

Opinions Jan. 9, 2013

January 9, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Michael D. Weir
11-3321
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Terre Haute Division, Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson.
Criminal. All the judges on the original panel have voted to deny the petition for rehearing and no judge in regular active service asked for a vote on the petition for rehearing en banc. The petition is therefore denied. Weir complained that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated when a police officer seized $6,655 from him during a traffic stop.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Jeffrey A. Hanauer v. Colleen T. Hanauer
79A04-1205-PO-271
Protective order. Affirms issuance of a protective order against Jeffrey Hanauer as there is sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s issuance of the protective order after finding the wife is a victim of domestic violence.

Aaron Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
32A01-1206-CR-270
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony battery.

Marty L. Armes v. State of Indiana (NFP)
28A01-1207-CR-299
Criminal. Affirms probation conditions are not ambiguous, overbroad, unconstitutionally vague or unreasonable, and the trial court’s sentence for two counts of Class B felony sexual misconduct with a minor is not inappropriate.

Brian E. Green v. State of Indiana (NFP)
63A04-1203-CR-141
Criminal. Affirms interlocutory order denying motion to suppress evidence seized after officers stopped the vehicle in which Green was a passenger.
 
Jack Lee v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1205-CR-384
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated.

Troy Crim v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1204-CR-276
Criminal. Affirms conviction of operating a vehicle while intoxicated as a Class C misdemeanor.

Gerald Mickens v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1112-PC-1162
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Juan C. Duarte-Lopez v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1205-PC-238
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.
 

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT