Opinions March 20, 2017

March 20, 2017
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion was posted after IL deadline Friday:
USA v. Jeffrey Rothbard
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. Judge Richard L. Young.
Criminal. Affirms Jeffrey Rothbard’s sentence of 24 months in prison for one count of wire fraud, despite the fact that he is an older man suffering from serious health problems. Finds that the district court gave sound reasons for its chosen sentence. Also finds that the evidence in the record before the district court and supplemental information requested about the Bureau of Prisons’ ability to provide appropriate care shows that the nominal 24-month sentence will not “spell doom” for Rothbard. Judge Richard Posner dissents with separate opinion.

Indiana Court of Appeals
William Ryan v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Criminal. Affirms William Ryan’s conviction for Class B misdemeanor public intoxication. Finds that the evidence is sufficient to sustain Ryan’s conviction.

James Michael Cox v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Criminal. Affirms James Michael Cox’s convictions for Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, Class A misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia and Class B misdemeanor possession of marijuana. Finds that Cox’s constitutional arguments are waived for failure to make a cogent argument and that waiver notwithstanding, he did not present the same arguments to the trial court, thus leaving the Indiana Court of Appeals unable to address them. Also finds that the state presented sufficient evidence to support Cox’s convictions.

Kenneth Leon Wilson, Jr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Criminal. Affirms Kenneth Wilson’s sentence to two years in the Bartholomew County Jail for Level 6 felony strangulation. Finds that the Bartholomew Circuit Court did not abuse its discretion when it sentenced Wilson. Also finds that Wilson’s sentence is not inappropriate.

Brandon L. Jones v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Criminal. Affirms Brandon Jones’ convictions for dealing in cocaine as a Level 2 felony, possession of a narcotic as a Level 6 felony, possession of a controlled substance as a Class A misdemeanor and carrying a handgun without a license as a Class A misdemeanor. Finds that the Allen Superior Court did not err when it admitted evidence found on Jones after an officer conducted a pat-down search.

CHINS: Child Advocates, Inc., Guardian Ad Litem v. DT, et al. (mem. dec.)
Juvenile CHINS. Dismisses Child Advocates, Inc.’s appeal of the transfer of a guardianship case from probate court to juvenile court and an order in a child in need of services case changing the child’s permanency plan from adoption to reunification. Finds that as to the guardianship case, the transfer order is not a final and appealable order and that, further, Child Advocates requested that the transfer take place, so any error was invited. Also finds that as to the CHINS case, the permanency plan is not a final and appealable order. Finally, finds that as to both cases, the CHINS case has been closed and the guardianship case has been voluntarily dismissed by Child Advocates, so the Indiana Court of Appeals can offer no effective relief to the parties and the case is, therefore, moot.

RW v. GB (mem. dec.)
Adoption. Affirms the Vanderburgh Superior Court’s order granting the petition filed by G.B. to adopt R.W.’s biological son, L.W. Finds that R.W. has waived his argument that the trial court erred in finding that his consent to the adoption was not required based on a reason not alleged in the adoption petition because he did not object at trial.

Termination: RW, et al. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
Juvenile termination of parental rights. Affirms the termination of R.W.’s parental rights to S.W. and the termination of E.R.W.’s parental rights to D.H. and S.W. Finds that the evidence is sufficient to support the termination of R.W. and E.R.W.’s parental rights.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's an appreciable step taken by the government to curb the child abuse that are happening in the schools. Employees in the schools those are selected without background check can not be trusted. A thorough background check on the teachers or any other other new employees must be performed to choose the best and quality people. Those who are already employed in the past should also be checked for best precaution. The future of kids can be saved through this simple process. However, the checking process should be conducted by the help of a trusted background checking agency(

  2. Almost everything connects to internet these days. From your computers and Smartphones to wearable gadgets and smart refrigerators in your home, everything is linked to the Internet. Although this convenience empowers usto access our personal devices from anywhere in the world such as an IP camera, it also deprives control of our online privacy. Cyber criminals, hackers, spies and everyone else has realized that we don’t have complete control on who can access our personal data. We have to take steps to to protect it like keeping Senseless password. Dont leave privacy unprotected. Check out this article for more ways:

  3. You need to look into Celadon not paying sign on bonuses. We call get the run

  4. My parents took advantage of the fact that I was homeless in 2012 and went to court and got Legal Guardianship I my 2 daughters. I am finally back on my feet and want them back, but now they want to fight me on it. I want to raise my children and have them almost all the time on the weekends. Mynparents are both almost 70 years old and they play favorites which bothers me a lot. Do I have a leg to stand on if I go to court to terminate lehal guardianship? My kids want to live with me and I want to raise them, this was supposed to be temporary, and now it is turning into a fight. Ridiculous

  5. Here's my two cents. While in Texas in 2007 I was not registered because I only had to do it for ten years. So imagine my surprise as I find myself forced to register in Texas because indiana can't get their head out of their butt long enough to realize they passed an ex post facto law in 2006. So because Indiana had me listed as a failure to register Texas said I had to do it there. Now if Indiana had done right by me all along I wouldn't need the aclu to defend my rights. But such is life.