ILNews

Opinions July 11, 2013

July 11, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Danny Harmon
12-1502
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Jane E. Magnus-Stinson.
Criminal. Affirms convictions of marijuana conspiracy and related offenses and 360-month sentence. A trial continuance did not violate his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial and the disclosure of Harmon’s prior drug conviction did not deprive him of a fair trial. The court did not make a mistake in finding Harmon responsible for more than 10,000 kilograms of marijuana.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Lindsay Tatusko v. State of Indiana
29A04-1208-CR-413
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felony forgery and Class D felony theft. Tatusko’s electronic alteration of an authorized tip amount constitutes forgery. She also hasn’t shown she was denied effective assistance of trial counsel.

Kenneth Smith v. State of Indiana

49A02-1212-CR-1017
Criminal. Affirms order Smith pay $1,380 in restitution to William Kirkham. The trial court did not err when it allowed the state to present evidence at the restitution hearing of the victim’s actual loss that was not presented during Smith’s theft trial. The trial court also inquired into Smith’s ability to pay restitution.

In the Matter of the Paternity and Maternity of Infant T.
67A05-1301-JP-36
Juvenile. Reverses denial of father M.F.’s request to establish paternity and affirms the denial of surrogate M.F.’s petition to disestablish maternity. Her request is not cognizable so the trial court properly denied it. Indiana law presumes the birth mother is the child’s biological mother. Remands for the trial court to enter an order establishing M.F.’s paternity.

Robert M. Gates v. City of Indianapolis
49A04-1210-OV-503
Ordinance violation. Reverses denial of Gates’ request for a jury trial on three municipal ordinances the city alleges Gates violated. The nature of the underlying substantive claims brought against him is quasi-criminal, and he is entitled to a jury trial under Article I, Section 20 of the Indiana Constitution. Remands with instructions to grant the jury trial request.

Paul Monet Fontaine v. State of Indiana (NFP)

45A03-1211-CR-476
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class C felony forgery.

Cecilia Kelly v. GEPA Hotel Owner Indianapolis LLC, GEPA Hotel Operator Indianapolis LLC, and Schindler Elevator Corporation (NFP)
49A04-1210-CT-509
Civil tort. Reverses grant of summary judgment in favor of GEPA Hotel Owners Indianapolis, GEPA Hotel Operator and Schindler Elevator Corp. on Kelly’s negligence lawsuit.

David L. Howard v. State of Indiana (NFP)

46A04-1212-PC-639
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Dana L. Smith v. James L. Smith (NFP
)
49A05-1210-DR-554
Domestic relation. Affirms order denying Dana Smith’s motion to correct error following the entry of the decree dissolving the Smiths’ marriage. Remands with instructions for the trial court to add an exhibit nunc pro tunc and to redistribute the decree to the parties.

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

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's an appreciable step taken by the government to curb the child abuse that are happening in the schools. Employees in the schools those are selected without background check can not be trusted. A thorough background check on the teachers or any other other new employees must be performed to choose the best and quality people. Those who are already employed in the past should also be checked for best precaution. The future of kids can be saved through this simple process. However, the checking process should be conducted by the help of a trusted background checking agency(https://www.affordablebackgroundchecks.com/).

  2. Almost everything connects to internet these days. From your computers and Smartphones to wearable gadgets and smart refrigerators in your home, everything is linked to the Internet. Although this convenience empowers usto access our personal devices from anywhere in the world such as an IP camera, it also deprives control of our online privacy. Cyber criminals, hackers, spies and everyone else has realized that we don’t have complete control on who can access our personal data. We have to take steps to to protect it like keeping Senseless password. Dont leave privacy unprotected. Check out this article for more ways: https://www.purevpn.com/blog/data-privacy-in-the-age-of-internet-of-things/

  3. You need to look into Celadon not paying sign on bonuses. We call get the run

  4. My parents took advantage of the fact that I was homeless in 2012 and went to court and got Legal Guardianship I my 2 daughters. I am finally back on my feet and want them back, but now they want to fight me on it. I want to raise my children and have them almost all the time on the weekends. Mynparents are both almost 70 years old and they play favorites which bothers me a lot. Do I have a leg to stand on if I go to court to terminate lehal guardianship? My kids want to live with me and I want to raise them, this was supposed to be temporary, and now it is turning into a fight. Ridiculous

  5. Here's my two cents. While in Texas in 2007 I was not registered because I only had to do it for ten years. So imagine my surprise as I find myself forced to register in Texas because indiana can't get their head out of their butt long enough to realize they passed an ex post facto law in 2006. So because Indiana had me listed as a failure to register Texas said I had to do it there. Now if Indiana had done right by me all along I wouldn't need the aclu to defend my rights. But such is life.

ADVERTISEMENT