ILNews

Opinions May 10, 2013

May 10, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Royce Brown v. John F. Caraway, Warden
12-1439
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Terre Haute Division, Judge William T. Lawrence.
Civil. Reverses denial of Brown’s petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 in which he argued under Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (2008), his prior Delaware conviction for arson in the third degree did not qualify as a crime of violence. Brown is entitled to relief, and under Begay, his prior conviction doesn’t qualify as “generic” arson under the enumerated crimes clause of the career offender guideline, nor is it covered by the residual clause. Remands with instructions to reduce his drug and firearm sentence to reflect that he is not a career offender under Section U.S.S.G. Section 4B1.1. Chief Judge Easterbrook issued a statement concerning the circulation under Circuit Rule 40(e).

Indiana Court of Appeals
Dwight L. Cobbs v. State of Indiana
49A05-1207-CR-380
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony dealing in cocaine. The trial court properly admitted the confidential informant’s testimony. Even if the court erred by admitting it, any error was harmless.

Roberto Barajas v. State of Indiana
10A01-1208-PC-387
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief. Barajas failed to demonstrate prejudice by his trial counsel’s performance in light of the court’s advisements at his guilty plea hearing.

Bobby Alexander v. State of Indiana

49A04-1207-CR-351
Criminal. Dismisses appeal of conviction of Class B felony aggravated battery and remands with instructions for the trial court to enter a restitution order within 30 days of this opinion. The trial court never entered a restitution order, so the case is in procedural limbo.

Karina Wilson v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A02-1207-CR-602
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class A misdemeanor battery.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of C.T. and D.T., minor children, and C.T., biological father, and K.P., biological mother: C.T. and K.P. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
79A02-1210-JT-837
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Mr. Bults, Inc. D/B/A MBI v. Nathan Orlando (NFP)

56A04-1210-CT-515
Civil tort. Affirms negligence finding against Mr. Bults Inc. and $650,000 jury award.

In Re: The Paternity of V.A.; R.A. v. B.Y. (NFP)
39A01-1209-JP-413
Juvenile. Affirms order addressing custody, parenting time, child support and personal property issues. Remands for the court to rule on the issue of legal custody, father’s contempt petition, to clarify the factual basis for its child support order and to enter findings supporting the conclusion.

Daon L. Bellamy v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1210-CR-500
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no decisions by IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  3. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  4. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  5. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

ADVERTISEMENT