ILNews

Opinions Nov. 21, 2012

November 21, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. William Hagler
11-2984
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, Judge William C. Lee.
Criminal. Affirms conviction of attempted bank robbery. Hagler argued that the government waited too long to indict him, that the evidence was insufficient to convict him, and that new DNA testing entitles him to a new trial.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Tyler A. White v. State of Indiana
90A04-1111-CR-621
Criminal. Affirms murder conviction. The probative value of the 804(b)(5) evidence outweighed the danger of the unfair prejudice to White. The Legislature’s intent in the feticide enhancement statute is clear that the state need not prove a defendant’s mens rea when seeking a sentence enhancement for feticide.

Robert D. Davis v. State of Indiana
11A01-1204-CR-251
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to correct erroneous sentence. The trial court followed the appellate court’s order on remand as far as resentencing, and Davis did not develop a cogent argument with respect to how a 1994 amendment regarding sentencing would have affected his sentence.

Romero Leslie v. State of Indiana
49A04-1203-CR-135
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony dealing in cocaine. Leslie hasn’t shown that the trial court committed fundamental error when it denied his request to dismiss a juror, nor that the court abused its discretion when it dismissed another juror after she stated she couldn’t render a decision based on the evidence.

Thomas H. Andrews v. State of Indiana
29A02-1112-MI-1166
Miscellaneous. Reverses and remands with instructions to grant Andrew’s petition to be removed from the sex offender registry. Requiring him to register violates the Indiana Constitution prohibitions on ex post facto laws, and Indiana state courts do not have the authority to consider whether federal statutory penalties attach to Andrews’ conduct.

James Henley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1205-CR-404
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felonies attempted forgery and forgery, and Class D felony theft.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of K.S. and K.C. (Minor Children) and Y.C. (Mother) v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
48A04-1202-JT-52
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Lanika Young v. State of Indiana (NFP)
http://media.ibj.com/Lawyer/websites/opinions/index.php?pdf=2012/november/11211205pdm.pdf
49A04-1203-CR-138
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's an appreciable step taken by the government to curb the child abuse that are happening in the schools. Employees in the schools those are selected without background check can not be trusted. A thorough background check on the teachers or any other other new employees must be performed to choose the best and quality people. Those who are already employed in the past should also be checked for best precaution. The future of kids can be saved through this simple process. However, the checking process should be conducted by the help of a trusted background checking agency(https://www.affordablebackgroundchecks.com/).

  2. Almost everything connects to internet these days. From your computers and Smartphones to wearable gadgets and smart refrigerators in your home, everything is linked to the Internet. Although this convenience empowers usto access our personal devices from anywhere in the world such as an IP camera, it also deprives control of our online privacy. Cyber criminals, hackers, spies and everyone else has realized that we don’t have complete control on who can access our personal data. We have to take steps to to protect it like keeping Senseless password. Dont leave privacy unprotected. Check out this article for more ways: https://www.purevpn.com/blog/data-privacy-in-the-age-of-internet-of-things/

  3. You need to look into Celadon not paying sign on bonuses. We call get the run

  4. My parents took advantage of the fact that I was homeless in 2012 and went to court and got Legal Guardianship I my 2 daughters. I am finally back on my feet and want them back, but now they want to fight me on it. I want to raise my children and have them almost all the time on the weekends. Mynparents are both almost 70 years old and they play favorites which bothers me a lot. Do I have a leg to stand on if I go to court to terminate lehal guardianship? My kids want to live with me and I want to raise them, this was supposed to be temporary, and now it is turning into a fight. Ridiculous

  5. Here's my two cents. While in Texas in 2007 I was not registered because I only had to do it for ten years. So imagine my surprise as I find myself forced to register in Texas because indiana can't get their head out of their butt long enough to realize they passed an ex post facto law in 2006. So because Indiana had me listed as a failure to register Texas said I had to do it there. Now if Indiana had done right by me all along I wouldn't need the aclu to defend my rights. But such is life.

ADVERTISEMENT