ILNews

Opinions, May 23, 2011

May 23, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion  posted after IL deadline May 20
USA v. Sidney O. Sellers
09-2516
Criminal. Vacates sentences for possession with intent to sell crack cocaine and possession of a firearm used in drug trafficking, and orders new trial for Sidney O. Sellers, stating the court failed to consider Sellers’s reasons for requesting a motion for a continuance. Remands for a new trial, including all pre-trial proceedings.

7th Circuit Court of Appeals had posted no opinions at IL deadline

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline

Indiana Court of Appeals
Jimmie E. Jones, Jr. v. State of Indiana
29A02-1008-CR-935
Criminal. Affirms conviction for felony murder, stating that the trial court did not err by refusing Jimmie Jones’s tendered instructions on reckless homicide and involuntary manslaughter, as evidence suggests Jones knowingly and willingly killed the victim.

Stephen Robertson, et al. v. B.O., et al.
49A04-1009-CT-528
Civil tort. Reverses partial summary judgment with respect to the compensable damages in favor of appellee-plaintiff B.O., a minor, stating the trial court erred in excluding the Indiana Compensation Fund’s evidence regarding the extent of B.O.’s damages.

Willie McCain, Jr. v. State of Indiana
27A02-1009-CR-985
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s judgment of conviction for Class B felony dealing in cocaine, stating that while the court erred in prohibiting as unsubstantiated any discussion of the confidential informant’s criminal background, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

James Andrew Foxworthy v. State of Indiana (NFP)
32A05-1009-CR-583
Criminal. Reverses conviction for Class A misdemeanor domestic battery, stating the trial court abused its discretion in admitting a deputy’s testimony over the defendant’s hearsay objection.

Jack M. Estes, II v. State of Indiana (NFP)
32A04-1010-CR-693
Criminal. Reverses consecutive sentences for revocation of probation in Hendricks and Boone counties, and remands for imposition of concurrent sentences.

Ronald Hollin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
36A01-1008-CR-378
Criminal. Affirms convictions for Class A felony child molesting and other related counts.

Joseph Cree v. State of Indiana (NFP)
09A02-1009-PC-1008
Post-conviction relief petition. Affirms order of post-conviction court’s summary denial of petition.

Johnny Baptiste v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1010-CR-616
Criminal. Reverses convictions for Class D felony auto theft and Class A misdemeanor battery; upholds conviction for Class A felony robbery, stating the robbery and auto theft convictions violate the double-jeopardy single-larceny rule and convictions for robbery violate actual-evidence test.

Donald Mallard v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1006-PC-362
Post-conviction relief petition. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief petition.

Russel F. Cowherd v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A05-1008-CR-567
Criminal. Affirms conviction for Class C felony possession of cocaine.

Quan Ning Huang v. Tanas B. Donev (NFP)
02A03-1012-MF-661
Mortgage foreclosure. Affirm’s grant of summary judgment and corresponding entry of decree of foreclosure in favor of Tanas B. Doney.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT