ILNews

Opinions July 28, 2014

July 28, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinions were posted after IL deadline Friday:
Toni Ball v. City of Indianapolis, et al.
13-1901
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Sarah Evans Barker.
Civil. Affirms District Court’s dismissal of Ball’s wrongful arrest complaints against police and municipal defendants, preserving only a Fourth Amendment claim against a detective that since has been removed to state court. Because the allegations of the complaint did not support Ball’s claims for relief except for her Fourth Amendment claims, the district court properly dismissed and granted judgment on the pleadings of those claims.

Che B. Carter v. Keith Butts
13-2466
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Sarah Evans Barker.
Criminal. Affirms denial of petition for habeas corpus. Holds that Carter, serving a 90-year sentence on convictions of burglary, robbery, rape and attempted murder, was not sufficiently prejudiced. Finds that the Indiana Supreme Court did not unreasonably conclude that Carter had not met the two-prong ineffective assistance of counsel test established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).

Leonard Dewitt v. Corizon, Inc., et al.
13-2930
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Terre Haute Division, Judge William T. Lawrence.
Civil. Reverses denial of motions for recruitment of counsel and grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant and remands so the court may recruit counsel so that  Dewitt can conduct further discovery in order to litigate his deliberate indifference case.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Bobby Alexander v. State of Indiana
49A04-1207-CR-351
Criminal. Reverse one of two convictions for Class B felony aggravated battery. Rules the state incorrectly asserted in the charging information and during closing arguments that Alexander’s actions of shooting at a car created a substantial risk of death. The statute clearly provides that the substantial risk of death must be created by the injury inflicted upon the victim and not by the defendant’s actions. Remands with instructions to enter judgment of conviction for battery as a Class C felony and to resentence accordingly.  

Chad Matthew McClellan v. State of Indiana
29A05-1401-CR-7
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony battery, holding that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to conclude that a stun gun was a deadly weapon for purposes of the battery with a deadly weapon statute.

Ashley Bell v. State of Indiana
49A02-1312-CR-1026
Criminal. Affirms conviction for Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana. Finds Bell’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated by the warrantless patdown search which led to the discovery of 10 baggies of marijuana. Rules that based on precedent, the smell of marijuana gave the police officer probable cause to conduct a patdown search.

J.P. v. G.M. and R.M.
38A02-1311-MI-960
Miscellaneous/grandparent visitation. Reverses order awarding maternal grandparents G.M. and R.M. visitation with their 3-year-old grandchild, finding that father J.P. was prejudiced by the denial of a motion for continuance after learning that grandparents were represented by counsel and he was not. Remands for a new hearing.

Uriah M. Levy v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A04-1402-CR-67
Criminal. Affirms revocation of Levy’s probation.

In the Matter of the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of K.S., D.S., and N.S., Minor Children, and Their Father S.S., S.S. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
49A02-1312-JT-1051
Juvenile. Affirms juvenile court’s order terminating father’s parental right to his three minor children.

Charles E. Decker v. State of Indiana (NFP)
84A01-1401-CR-19
Criminal. Affirms revocation of Decker’s probation and the trial court’s order that he serve the remaining four years of his sentence in the Indiana Department of Correction.  

Henry Lewis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1307-PC-342
Post conviction. Affirms denial of Lewis’s petition for post-conviction relief.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court did not post any opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals did not submit any Indiana opinions by IL deadline.
 

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. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT