ILNews

SCOTUS rejects two Indiana cases

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Supreme Court of the United States has declined to get involved in two appeals out of Indiana, upholding federal or state rulings on both cases.

At its private conference on Friday, the nation’s highest court discussed and granted certiorari to six cases from across the country, but none from Indiana. A 16-page order list issued by the court today includes two Indiana cases – one prisoner habeas corpus request from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and one LaPorte County murder case that went as high as the Indiana Court of Appeals.

Justices denied the 7th Circuit case of Courtney C. Dixie v. Bill K. Wilson, Superintendent of the Indiana State Prison, No. 10-5846. The request filed in August stems from a May decision by a three-judge appellate panel that denied the man’s petition for habeas corpus and an application for a certificate of appealability, which found no substantial showing of constitutional rights violations. U.S. Judge Theresa Springmann in the Northern District of Indiana had denied his request for a certificate of appealability earlier in the year, after denying Dixie’s habeas corpus petition late last year in Dixie v. Wilson, No. 3:07-CV-31. This federal litigation stemmed from Dixie’s Allen County murder convictions and 95-year sentence that the state Supreme Court upheld 10 years ago.

A second case included on the SCOTUS order list is Jack Jervis v. Indiana, No. 10-5854, which arises out of the LaPorte Superior Court. In November 2009, the state’s second-highest appellate court upheld a trial court’s denial of post-conviction relief based on ineffective assistance claims relating to his 2001 murder conviction. The Indiana Supreme Court in April denied transfer, but the decision was 3-2 with Justices Frank Sullivan and Theodore Boehm voting to grant transfer. Attorneys filed a writ of certiorari with the SCOTUS in July, and the justices have now denied that request.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. 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.

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT