Opinions Oct. 13, 2010

October 13, 2010
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Cruz Saenz
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Sarah Evans Barker.
Criminal. Affirms conviction of conspiring to distribute more than 5 kilograms of cocaine but vacates his 293-month sentence. Rejects Saenz’s speedy trial challenge because nearly all of the delay is attributable to requests by Saenz or his co-defendants and the court didn’t error in imposing an obstruction of justice enhancement by concluding Saenz willfully lied about whether he knew the money he was transporting was drug money. Remands for the District Court to reconsider whether Saenz should receive the minor role adjustment as there is no evidence in the record of his involvement in a conspiracy beyond the single transport of money.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
State of Indiana v. Eric Booher, et al.
Civil. Reverses award of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest to the Boohers and Nortra Inc. Based on the language in the settlement agreements, the agreements didn’t contemplate any pre-judgment interest other than that accrued on the amounts previously deposited by the state. Remands for a calculation of post-judgment interest because the record doesn’t reveal when or if the state paid the Boohers the remaining principal payment or when the state paid the remaining principal payment under the Nortra judgment.  

Fabian Morgan v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon as a Class B felony. Morgan waived his claim that there wasn’t sufficient evidence to prove he qualified as a serious violent felon. Concludes there is persuasive authority for the proposition that a stipulation may be presented to the jury in the form of a preliminary instruction, where it may be challenged by a defendant who preserves the issue for appellate review. The trial court didn’t commit fundamental error when it stated to the jury that the defense attorney’s characterization of certain evidence was “misleading” and “not the evidence.”

Larry E. Hyatt v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of four counts of dealing in cocaine as Class B felonies and one count of maintaining a common nuisance as a Class D felony.

Clarence T. Hunt v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class A felony dealing in a narcotic drug.

Jason Akemon v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony rape.

Shavaughn C. Wilson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Ronald B. Blake v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to operating a vehicle after forfeiture for life as a Class C felony.

Christopher James Hovious v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Kevin Andrew Kohler v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony child molesting and two counts of Class C felony child molesting.

Sabrina Wright v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of battery on a law enforcement officer as a Class A misdemeanor.

Willard Bolton v. Nanette Bolton (NFP)
Domestic relation. Reverses the valuation of certain marital assets and finding Willard in contempt of the court’s Dec. 7, 2009, order. Affirms denial of his request for permanent spousal maintenance, ordering of an unequal division of marital assets, and not awarding Willard attorney’s fees.

M.B. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Juvenile. Reverses modification of probation to the Department of Correction and remands for an evidentiary hearing.

Jessica Haylett v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor criminal mischief.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  2. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  3. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  4. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.

  5. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well