ILNews

Opinions March 24, 2011

March 24, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Rollie Mitchell
10-1831
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
49A02-1004-CR-586
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
68A01-1009-JP-475
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
89A01-1009-CR-472
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)
30A01-1009-CT-445
Civil tort. Affirms Hancock Superior Court’s denial of motion for leave to amend complaint.

Steven Green v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1008-CR-466
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony sexual misconduct with a minor.

Flavio Gonzalez v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A05-1006-CR-407
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)
77A01-1006-SC-352
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)
20A04-1009-CR-545
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)
43A03-1008-CR-439
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s sentence following revocation of probation.

S.R. v. Review Board (NFP)
93A02-1009-EX-995
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)
49A05-1007-CR-442
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor of disorderly conduct.

Matthew Riddle v. Lee Rimer (NFP)
80A02-1011-PO-1203
Order of protection. Affirms trial court’s order granting Lee Rimer a protective order.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT