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

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT