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. 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.

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT