ILNews

Opinions March 7, 2011

March 7, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Martin Avila
09-2681
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge David F. Hamilton.
Criminal. Affirms 365-month sentence for drug offenses following re-sentencing on remand. The District Court corrected the drug quantity attributable to Avila. The District Court did not violate the cross-appeal rule and acted within the scope of the remand.

United States of America v. William Travis Brown
09-3976
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. Chief Judge David F. Hamilton.
Criminal. Affirms 240-month sentence for one count of possession of child pornography and one count of transportation of child pornography. Application of the “thing of value” enhancement was not double counting. The District Court properly based Brown’s sentence on the Section 3553(a) sentencing guidelines.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Jill M. Baird v. Lake Santee Regional Waste and Water District (NFP)
16A01-1009-CC-470
Civil collections. Affirms denial of Baird’s motion for relief from judgment granting a foreclosure decree against her property in favor of Lake Santee Regional Waste and Water District for her failure to pay sewer connection penalties.

Desmond D. Clayton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1006-CR-363
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony robbery and Class A misdemeanor battery.

Ricky Renee Patterson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1007-PC-894
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Thomas William Donaldson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1007-CR-763
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony resisting law enforcement.

Carl Sonnenberg, et al. v. A.N. Real Estate Services, Inc., et al. (NFP)
29A04-1005-PL-381
Civil plenary. Affirms determination that the Sonnenbergs are only entitled to $650 in damages in a lawsuit against A.N. Real Estate Services and employee Natalie Higgens pursuant to the Home Loan Practices Act for an erroneous appraisal of their home.

Seth R. Adkins v. State of Indiana (NFP)
57A03-1010-CR-569
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class A felony dealing in methamphetamine.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

The Indiana Supreme Court denied transfer to 16 cases for the week ending March 4.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT