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. I enrolled America's 1st tax-free Health Savings Account (HSA) so you can trust me. I bet 1/3 of my clients were lawyers because they love tax-free deposits, growth and withdrawals or total tax freedom. Most of the time (always) these clients are uninformed about insurance law. Employer-based health insurance is simple if you read the policy. It says, Employers (lawyers) and employees who are working 30-hours-per-week are ELIGIBLE for insurance. Then I show the lawyer the TERMINATION clause which states: When you are no longer ELIGIBLE! Then I ask a closing question (sales term) to the lawyer which is, "If you have a stroke or cancer and become too sick to work can you keep your health insurance?" If the lawyer had dependent children they needed a "Dependent Conversion Privilege" in case their child got sick or hurt which the lawyers never had. Lawyers are pretty easy sales. Save premium, eliminate taxes and build wealth!

  2. Ok, so cheap laughs made about the Christian Right. hardiharhar ... All kidding aside, it is Mohammad's followers who you should be seeking divine protection from. Allahu Akbar But progressives are in denial about that, even as Europe crumbles.

  3. Father's rights? What about a mothers rights? A child's rights? Taking a child from the custody of the mother for political reasons! A miscarriage of justice! What about the welfare of the child? Has anyone considered parent alienation, the father can't erase the mother from the child's life. This child loves the mother and the home in Wisconsin, friends, school and family. It is apparent the father hates his ex-wife more than he loves his child! I hope there will be a Guardian Ad Litem, who will spend time with and get to know the child, BEFORE being brainwashed by the father. This is not just a child! A little person with rights and real needs, a stable home and a parent that cares enough to let this child at least finish the school year, where she is happy and comfortable! Where is the justice?

  4. "The commission will review applications and interview qualified candidates in March and April." Riiiiiight. Would that be the same vaulted process that brought us this result done by "qualified candidates"? http://www.theindianalawyer.com/justices-deny-transfer-to-child-custody-case/PARAMS/article/42774 Perhaps a lottery system more like the draft would be better? And let us not limit it to Indiana attorneys so as to give the untainted a fighting chance?

  5. Steal a little, and they put you in jail. Steal a lot, and they make you king. Bob Dylan ala Samuel Johnson. I had a very similar experience trying to hold due process trampling bureaucrats responsible under the law. Consider this quote and commentary:"'When the president does it, that means it is not illegal,' [Richard] Nixon told his interviewer. Those words were largely seen by the American public -- which continued to hold the ex-president in low esteem -- as a symbol of his unbowed arrogance. Most citizens still wanted to believe that no American citizen, not even the president, is above the law." BWHaahaaahaaa!!!! http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/When-the-president-does-it-that-means-it-is-not-illegal.html

ADVERTISEMENT