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. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT