Opinions March 24, 2011

March 24, 2011
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Rollie Mitchell
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Sarah Evans Barker.
Criminal. Affirms sentence of life imprisonment for distributing cocaine base, stating the District Court properly calculated the guidelines range and did not improperly consider Mitchell’s exercise of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Affirms the District Court did not clearly err in finding by a preponderance of the evidence – the proper evidentiary standard – that Mitchell participated in the murder of a confidential informant.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Jeffrey Wooten v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Dismisses Wooten’s appeal of trial court’s revocation of his probation. The state asserts that the appeals court has no jurisdiction over Wooten’s appeal because Indiana Post-Conviction Rule 2 does not permit belated appeals from the revocation of probation. Declines Wooten’s request for appeals court to exercise jurisdiction under its inherent authority to hear appeals that present a great matter of public interest, stating substantial evidence supports the trial court’s conclusion that Wooten was properly before it for a probation revocation proceeding.

In the Matter of the Paternity of G.B.H.; L.R. v. N.H. and State of Indiana
Juvenile paternity. Reverses trial court’s contempt finding and resulting sanction, stating evidence does not support that father L.R. willfully failed to pay child support. States that during a period of involuntary unemployment, the father paid what he was able to pay, and had less than $100 per week on which to live after paying two cases of court-ordered support, and was therefore not in contempt.

Michael E. Cohee v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s decision to deny Cohee’s motion to suppress evidence against him. States that Cohee was not subject to a custodial interrogation when officers asked for his consent to a blood draw, and therefore, officers were not required to read his rights as outlined in Miranda v. Arizona.

Anthony Guzman v. C.K. Gray, et al. (NFP)
Civil tort. Affirms Hancock Superior Court’s denial of motion for leave to amend complaint.

Steven Green v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony sexual misconduct with a minor.

Flavio Gonzalez v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony criminal confinement while armed with a deadly weapon, and sentences for two counts of Class B felony criminal confinement while armed with a deadly weapon, and Class D felony domestic battery.

Charles E. Justise, Sr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Small claim. Grants appellant’s petition for rehearing. Reverses the trial court’s dismissal of his complaint and remands with instructions to the trial court to reinstate complaint against the state for further proceedings. Reaffirms decision regarding any claim against the appellees personally.

Ricardo Rico v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentences for two counts of Class A felony delivery of methamphetamine, three grams or more.  

Matthew L. Skinner v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s sentence following revocation of probation.

S.R. v. Review Board (NFP)
Civil. Affirms decision of Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development requiring S.R. to repay unemployment benefits.

Francheska McGraw v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor of disorderly conduct.

Matthew Riddle v. Lee Rimer (NFP)
Order of protection. Affirms trial court’s order granting Lee Rimer a protective order.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  2. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  3. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise

  4. I have a degree at law, recent MS in regulatory studies. Licensed in KS, admitted b4 S& 7th circuit, but not to Indiana bar due to political correctness. Blacklisted, nearly unemployable due to hostile state action. Big Idea: Headwinds can overcome, esp for those not within the contours of the bell curve, the Lego Movie happiness set forth above. That said, even without the blacklisting for holding ideas unacceptable to the Glorious State, I think the idea presented above that a law degree open many vistas other than being a galley slave to elitist lawyers is pretty much laughable. (Did the law professors of Indiana pay for this to be published?)

  5. Joe, you might want to do some reading on the fate of Hoosier whistleblowers before you get your expectations raised up.