ILNews

Opinions July 24, 2012

July 24, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Jeffrey D. Kirkland v. United States of America
11-2507
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, Judge Jon E. DeGuilio.
Civil. Reverses District Court’s conclusion that an enhancement of Kirkland’s sentence under the Armed Criminal Career Act was still appropriate based on his remaining three convictions for violent felonies. Court may only consider Shepard-approved sources in determining whether prior offenses occurred on separate occasions under 18 U.S.C. Section 924(e)(1). Based on the record, the appellate court can’t conclude that Kirkland’s robbery and burglary offenses – which were on the same day – occurred on separate occasions. Remands for resentencing.

Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Kelvin T. Brown v. Indianapolis Housing Agency
49A05-1111-CT-648
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment for IHA on Brown’s lawsuit for malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The IHA had a qualified privilege to report Brown’s suspected criminal conduct. The evidence does not show that the privilege was abused, and the privilege bars his claims.

Keith Crawford v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1112-CR-648
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class A felony dealing in cocaine.

Evonne Carrillo v. Review Board of the Ind. Dept. of Workforce Development and Skozen & Skozen, LLP (NFP)
93A02-1108-EX-794
Agency appeal. Affirms the review board’s decision that Carrillo was discharged from her job for just cause was reasonable.

Latine Davidson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
10A04-1112-PC-695
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Roy L. Streicher v. State of Indiana (NFP)
69A05-1111-CR-603
Criminal. Remands with instructions to vacate the Class C misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated conviction, and affirms sentence for Class D felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated with a previous operating while intoxicated conviction within the last five years and Class A misdemeanor domestic battery with injury.

Asa G. Wisler v. State of Indiana (NFP)
27A05-1109-CR-492
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C misdemeanor operating a vehicle with an ACE of 0.08 or more.

Alan Weir v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1201-CR-22
Criminal. Affirms trial court order Weir serve the balance of his home detention sentence and his previously suspended 2-year sentence in the Department of Correction.

Larry Edward Ruble, Jr., Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Natasha Ruble, Deceased v. Lori Thompson, M.D. (NFP)
53A05-1109-CT-488
Civil tort. Affirms judgment on a defense verdict in a medical malpractice action.

Jordan Guess v. State of Indiana (NFP)
84A01-1112-CR-620
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion for jail time credit.

John W. Breedlove v. State of Indiana (NFP)
09A02-1111-CR-1116
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine.

Justin Holman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1112-CR-1138
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class B felony robbery and one count of Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license.

Jeffrey Scott Brooks v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1111-CR-1095
Criminal. Affirms admittance of hearsay testimony at an evidentiary hearing on a probation violation.

Timothy L. Gabbard v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A02-1112-CR-1174
Criminal. Affirms sentence imposed following guilty plea to receiving stolen property and admitting to violating probation for the third time.

Chanda Banner v. Charles Kincaid (NFP)
82A05-1202-DR-93
Domestic relation. Affirms determination of Kincaid’s child support arrearage.

Dwayne Gaines v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1201-CR-12
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class C misdemeanor indecent exposure and remands with instructions to vacate. Affirms conviction of Class D felony criminal confinement.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT