ILNews

Opinions Aug. 25, 2010

August 25, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following opinion was posted after IL deadline Tuesday.
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Irvin S. Hudson
09-3518
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, Judge Robert L. Miller Jr.
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to possession of a firearm as a felon and possession of a stolen firearm based on Hudson’s previous conviction of dealing in a substance represented to be a controlled substance. Holds that “look-alike” offenses constitute controlled-substance offenses for sentencing purposes.

Today’s opinions
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Jorge Quintero, a/k/a Samuel Munoz, and Claudia Andrade Martinez
09-2715, 09-2788
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, Judges Rudy Lozano and James T. Moody.
Criminal. Dismisses Quintero’s appeal of his sentence after pleading guilty to charges related to a bank robbery and unlawful entering on waiver grounds. Affirms Martinez’s conviction and sentence for bank robbery and unlawfully remaining in the U.S. The jury instructions given at Martinez’s trial regarding aiding and abetting were correct statements of the law.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Fernando B. Eguia Sr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
01A02-1001-CR-157
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct.

M.H. v. J.H. (NFP)
30A01-1003-DR-99
Domestic relation. Affirms trial court’s calculation of income, treatment of tax exemptions, and failure to find contempt. Reverses court’s assessment of child support and remands for the trial court to recalculate the cost of child support.

Uma Chaluvadi v. City of Indianapolis (NFP)
49A02-1003-OV-230
Local ordinance violation. Reverses order denying Chaluvadi’s motion to set aside default judgment.

Michael Yates v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A02-0912-CR-1187
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for Class D felony possession of cocaine and Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana.

Eric Skeens v. State of Indiana (NFP)
35A05-0909-CR-515
Criminal. Affirms convictions of four counts of child molesting as Class A felonies and one count as a Class C felony. Remands for the trial court to issue an amended sentencing order and issue any other documents or CCS entries necessary to impose a sentence of 90 years.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT