Opinions August 24, 2023

The following 7^th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion posted after IL deadline Wednesday:

United States of America v. Charles Skaggs Jr.
22-2424
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis division. Judge Sarah Evans Barker.
Criminal. Vacates the preliminary order of forfeiture and leaves the original judgment in force that was part of Charles Skaggs’s sentence for producing and possessing child pornography. Finds the district court lacked the authority to amend that judgment years after its entry.

Thursday opinions
Court of Appeals of Indiana

K.H. v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development (mem. dec.)
23A-EX-413
Appeal in certain administrative proceedings. Affirms the denial of K.H.’s unemployment benefits Finds K.H. does not qualify for unemployment benefits.

Axia Holdings LLC v. Arieona Bell, et al., Bradley R. Liggin and Troy D. Liggin (mem. dec.)
23A-PL-730
Civil plenary. Affirms the Marion Circuit Court’s order setting aside the default judgment in favor to United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. Finds it cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in setting aside its prior judgment pursuant to Trial Rule 60(B)(1).

Christy Krol v. Anthony Krol (mem. dec.)
22A-DC-2857
Domestic relations with children. Affirms the Lake Superior Court’s custody order and the court’s finding that Christy Krol is voluntarily underemployed. Reverses the trial court’s child support calculation and remands for proceedings consistent with the opinion. Finds the trial court’s imputation of $1,644 income per week to Christy was not supported by evidence.

Mark S. Lea v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
23A-CR-78
Criminal. Affirms Mark Lea’s five-year sentence for Level 5 battery resulting in bodily injury to a public safety official. Finds Lea has failed to persuade the court that the nature of his offense and his character justified a more lenient sentence.

Donald E. Hicks v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
22A-CR-2941
Criminal. Affirms the Elkhart Superior Court’s judgment and Donald Hick’s 14-year sentence for two counts of Level 3 felony rape. Finds Hicks has failed to establish that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his mistrial motion. Also finds the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing him and if there was an error it can only be considered as harmless. Also finds Hick’s argument failed to explain how a co-defendant’s cross-examination of victim’s prior sexual history meant that the state had opened the door.

Austin Augustine Mendez v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
23A-CR-121
Criminal. Affirms Austin Augustine Mendez’s convictions for murder and attempted murder. Finds no reversible error. Remands the Lake Superior Court to vacate Mendez’s counts that were merged.

Kriston Lamar Barbee v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
23A-CR-306
Criminal. Affirms Kriston Lamar Barbee’s conviction of Level 3 felony dealing in cocaine and being a habitual offender and his aggregate 14-year sentence. Finds the state presented sufficient evidence to prove he was dealing in cocaine.

Carl W. Lowe v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
22A-CR-3018
Criminal. Affirms Carl Lowe’s conviction for Level 4 felony arson. Finds there was sufficient evidence to support his conviction.

Joshua Tindall v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
23A-CR-749
Criminal. Affirms Joshua Tindall’s convictions for two counts of Level 4 felony child molesting. Finds the Pike Circuit Court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted certain testimony at trial, nor did it commit fundamental error when it instructed the jury. Also finds the state presented sufficient evidence to support his convictions.

Brandon D. Gage v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
23A-CR-477
Criminal. Affirms the Vanderburgh Superior Court’s judgment to order Brandon Gage to serve the balance of his previously suspended sentence. Finds it cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in its order.

Maurice Amos Jr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
23A-PC-82
Post-conviction relief. Affirms the Grant Circuit Court’s denial of Maurice Amos’s petition for post conviction relief. Finds the denial was not clearly erroneous and that Amos’s appellate counsel was not ineffective. Also finds witness testimony did not violate Amos’s due process rights.