Opinions July 31, 2013

July 31, 2013
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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

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
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

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)
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)

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)
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)

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)
Criminal. Affirms conviction for Class D felony battery.

 In the Matter of the Paternity of C.B., A.B. v. R.B. (NFP)
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.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. So men who think they are girls at heart can use the lady's potty? Usually the longer line is for the women's loo, so, the ladies may be the ones to experience temporary gender dysphoria, who knows? Is it ok to joke about his or is that hate? I may need a brainwash too, hey! I may just object to my own comment, later, if I get myself properly "oriented"

  2. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  3. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  4. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  5. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.