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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT