ILNews

Opinions July 6, 2012

July 6, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court released no opinions before IL deadline.

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
U.S. v. Justin Cephus, Jovan Stewart, and Stanton L. Cephus
10-3838, 10-3840, 11-1098
Criminal. Affirms in a case involving conspiracy to entice underage girls to engage in prostitution and transport them across state lines the life sentences without parole of multiple convictions for Justin and Stanton Cephus. The order remands to the trial court to enable the judge to reconcile a discrepancy in Stewart’s sentence of 324 months in federal prison. The judge said Stewart’s sentences were to be served consecutively; the written order indicates the sentences are concurrent.

U.S. v. Armando Mota
10-1486
Criminal. Affirms Mota’s conviction of attempting to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine and possessing with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine, holding that while a government agent failed to record and relay exculpatory evidence, Mota was not denied a fair trial because he learned of the evidence and presented it to the jury.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Charles Hazelbaker v. State of Indiana (NFP)
53A05-1111-CR-636
Criminal. Affirms trial court conviction of Class C felony incest and determination of defendant as a habitual offender.

Santos C. Lopez v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1109-CR-480
Criminal. Affirms trial court conviction of Class B felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon.

In the Paternity of: A.R. & P.H., by Next Friend, Tammy Raab; Christopher Hall v. Tammy Raab (NFP)
49A05-1111-JP-577
Domestic relations/child support. Affirms trial court calculation of father’s child support payments to mother.

Alea London, Ltd. v. Richard Nagy, Jr., and Christopher Buckler (NFP)
45A05-1202-CT-83
Civil tort. Reverses and remands the trial court grant of summary judgment for Nagy and Butler and orders entry of summary judgment in favor of Alea London Ltd.

James Daher, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
56A03-1201-CR-32
Affirms trial court denial of motion for relief from judgment of conviction of Class B felony conspiracy to commit escape with a deadly weapon.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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!

ADVERTISEMENT