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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT