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. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT