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. 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