ILNews

Opinions July 31, 2013

July 31, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following 7th Circuit and Indiana Supreme Court opinions were released Tuesday after IL deadline:
7th Circuit Court of Appeals

United States of America v. Michael L. Brock
11-3473
Criminal. Vacates mandatory minimum 15-year sentence for violation of the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1), for conviction of possession of machineguns. Remands to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana for resentencing. The 7th Circuit held that a 7th Circuit decision earlier this year, United States v. Miller, concluded that possession of a sawed-off shotgun was not a violent felony under ACCA and applied the ruling to Brock’s case, holding that he did not qualify for an enhanced sentence the act imposes for violent felonies.  

Indiana Supreme Court
Ann L. Miller and Richard A. Miller v. Glenn L. Dobbs, D.O. and Partners in Health
15S05-1302-CT-91
Civil Tort. Reverses trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants’ and remand for further proceedings. Concludes even though the Millers’ attorney sent a check for filing and processing fees after he had filed the complaint, the document was still timely filed. Finds nothing in the Indiana Code that requires fees be submitted before the complaint is considered filed.

Today’s Opinions
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Sikiru Adeyeye v. Heartland Sweeteners, LLC
12-3820
Civil/Religious discrimination. Reverses summary judgment in favor of Heartland and remands to the District Court for proceedings, holding that a material issue of fact exists as to whether Sikiru Adeyeye’s rights under Title VII were violated when he was fired after taking time off work to attend his father’s burial rights in Nigeria.  

United States of America v. Terry L. Sabo
12-2700
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to suppress evidence that resulted in his plea of guilty to charges of possession with the intent to distribute a controlled substance, possession of a firearm in the furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that Sabo’s action of stepping aside in his trailer after authorities asked if they could come inside implied consent for a search.


Bernard Hawkins v. United States of America
11-1245
Criminal. Denies petition for rehearing en banc of a petition for resentencing, holding in a 5-4 opinion that a recent 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Peugh v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2707 (2013), did not apply. Peugh held that the ex post facto clause prevents courts from sentencing a defendant based on guidelines promulgated after the commission of a crime if the newer guidelines would result in a sentencing range higher than those in place when a crime was committed. Dissenting judges held that Peugh applies to Hawkins’ case because his sentencing error was a miscarriage of justice that can be petitioned for relief in federal post-conviction proceedings.  


Indiana Court of Appeals
Michael E. Lyons, Ind; Denita L. Lyons, Ind.; Michael E. Lyons and Denita L. Lyons, as Co-personal Rep. of the Estate of Megan Renee Lyons, Deceased v. Richmond Community School Corp.Et Al.
89A04-1204-PL-159
Civil plenary. Clarifies and remands to the trial court for a jury determination on whether, in the exercise of ordinary diligence, Appellants/Plaintiffs Michael and Denita Lyons could have learned of the school corporation’s alleged ‘tortious acts’ prior to July 15, 2009, which was 180 days before the Lyonses filed notice of their claim regarding their daughter’s death.

Bruce Ryan v. State of Indiana

49A02-1211-CR-932
Criminal. Reverses Ryan’s two convictions for Class C felony sexual misconduct with a minor and remands for a new trial. Finds the cumulative effect of the prosecutor’s statements during closing arguments deprived Ryan of a fair trial.  

Don H. Dumont, M.D., v Penny Davis and Nicole Anderson, as Co-Administratrixes of the Estate of Charmitta Jordan, Deceased
45A05-1207-CT-384
Civil tort. Reverses trial court’s order granting Davis and Anderson a new trial in the wrongful death action against Dumont. Finds that the dispute over the testimony given by two expert witnesses is not sufficient grounds to grant a new trial.  

Seth A. Miller v. State of Indiana

63A01-1210-CR-475
Criminal. Affirms in part and reverses in part the judgment of the trial court. Finds the evidence fails to establish the necessary element of an enterprise within the meaning of the statute. Overturns the conviction for corrupt business influence and vacates the sentence of eight years.   

In the Matter of the Involuntary Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of M.N., Minor Child and his Father, M.D.N. v. Indiana Department of Chiild Services (NFP)
79A02-1301-JT-21
Juvenile. Affirms the juvenile court’s order terminating father’s parental rights to his son, M.N.  

Abdul G. Buridi v. RL BB Financial, LLC (NFP)

10A01-1212-MF-580
Mortgage foreclosure. Affirms denial of Buridi’s motion asking that the summary judgment be set aside because of newly discovered evidence.

Daniel R. Clemans v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1302-CR-289
Criminal. Affirms conviction of operating a motor vehicle while driving privileges are suspended due to being a habitual traffic violator, a Class D felony.

James W. Baker, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)

03A01-1302-CR-49
Criminal. Affirms sentence for two courts of burglary as Class C felonies. Finds trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Baker to eight years on each of the two counts, all executed, to be served concurrently with each other but consecutively with Baker’s sentences in two other separate cases.

Joshua A. Yenna v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1211-CR-499
Criminal. Affirms conviction for Class D felony battery.

 In the Matter of the Paternity of C.B., A.B. v. R.B. (NFP)
54A01-1211-JP-495
Juvenile Paternity. Affirms in part and reverses in part the judgment of the trial court. Concludes the trial court’s decisions regarding the calculation of child support were well-supported by its findings and by the evidence. However, finds the trial court erred by granting R.B.’s request to change C.B.’s name because he did not include this request in his written petition to establish paternity.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court released no opinions prior to 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. I work with some older lawyers in the 70s, 80s, and they are sharp as tacks compared to the foggy minded, undisciplined, inexperienced, listless & aimless "youths" being churned out by the diploma mill law schools by the tens of thousands. A client is generally lucky to land a lawyer who has decided to stay in practice a long time. Young people shouldn't kid themselves. Experience is golden especially in something like law. When you start out as a new lawyer you are about as powerful as a babe in the cradle. Whereas the silver halo of age usually crowns someone who can strike like thunder.

  2. YES I WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION WITH MY YOUNGEST SON PEOPLE NEED TO LEAVE US ALONE WITH DCS IF WE ARE NOT HURTING OR NEGLECT OUR CHILDREN WHY ARE THEY EVEN CALLED OUT AND THE PEOPLE MAKING FALSE REPORTS NEED TO GO TO JAIL AND HAVE A CLASS D FELONY ON THERE RECORD TO SEE HOW IT FEELS. I WENT THREW ALOT WHEN HE WAS TAKEN WHAT ELSE DOES THESE SCHOOL WANT ME TO SERVE 25 YEARS TO LIFE ON LIES THERE TELLING OR EVEN LE SAME THING LIED TO THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR JUST SO I WOULD GET ARRESTED AND GET TIME HE THOUGHT AND IT TURNED OUT I DID WHAT I HAD TO DO NOT PROUD OF WHAT HAPPEN AND SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SEEKING MEDICAL ATTENTION FOR MY CHILD I AM DISABLED AND SICK OF GETTING TREATED BADLY HOW WOULD THEY LIKE IT IF I CALLED APS ON THEM FOR A CHANGE THEN THEY CAN COME AND ARREST THEM RIGHT OUT OF THE SCHOOL. NOW WE ARE HOMELESS AND THE CHILDREN ARE STAYING WITH A RELATIVE AND GUARDIAN AND THE SCHOOL WON'T LET THEM GO TO SCHOOL THERE BUT WANT THEM TO GO TO SCHOOL WHERE BULLYING IS ALLOWED REAL SMART THINKING ON A SCHOOL STAFF.

  3. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  4. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  5. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

ADVERTISEMENT