ILNews

245-year sentence affirmed in Hovey Street slayings

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The gunman who pleaded guilty to four murders in the 3200 block of Hovey Street in Indianapolis was properly given and deserved a 245-year sentence for the crimes, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Friday.

The court affirmed Ronald Davis’ sentence, rejecting his arguments that it violated terms of his plea agreement, that the court abused its discretion in sentencing, and that the sentence was inappropriate.

“Davis is a dangerous person from whom society must be protected. In light of Davis’s character and the particularly heinous nature of the crime, we conclude that his 245-year sentence is not inappropriate,” Judge Ezra Friedlander wrote in a unanimous opinion.

Davis was among four people who hatched a plan to break into the house and steal a large amount of marijuana and cash they believed was inside. Finding none, Davis found Gina Hunt and her 23-month-old son, Jordan, and Andrea Yarrell and her five-month-old daughter, Charlii, hiding between a bed and a wall in a back bedroom.

Davis shot and killed them all at close range.

“The trial court properly indicated at the guilty plea hearing that Davis faced a maximum sentence of 280 years in prison. Davis, in fact, received a sentence below the maximum in part because the trial court ordered (conspiracy counts) to be served concurrently with one of the felony-murder counts. The 245-year sentence imposed clearly did not violate the terms of the plea agreement,” Friedlander wrote.

“Davis cannot seriously challenge his sentence on the basis of the nature of the offense, which is among the most heinous in Indiana’s history,” the judge wrote.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

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. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  3. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  4. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  5. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

ADVERTISEMENT