ILNews

Court of Appeals revises robbery sentence

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has ordered that a man’s robbery sentence be reduced because that conviction and sentence were not allowed due to double jeopardy. The man’s sentence for murder, robbery and rape dropped from 160 years to 130 years.

William Minnick was convicted in 1985 of murder, Class A felony robbery and Class A felony rape of Martha Payne. He was sentenced to death for the murder, but the trial court didn’t impose separate sentences for robbery or rape. His conviction was set aside in 2004 because he was found to be incompetent; the Indiana Department of Health notified the trial court in 2011 Minnick was competent.

At his new sentencing hearing, Minnick’s counsel raised concerns about Minnick’s competency, which the judge considered, but she proceeded with the hearing because she found Minnick was able to answer questions and be helpful to his attorney. He received 160 years for the three convictions.

In William Minnick v. State of Indiana, No. 47A05-1108-CR-448, the COA determined that double jeopardy prevented the trial court from convicting Minnick of Class A felony robbery because the stab wound in the victim’s back that caused her death was also the serious bodily injury alleged in the robbery count. The judges ordered the conviction be reduced to a Class B felony and that Minnick receive 20 years on that conviction, making his revised sentence 130 years.

The judges also held that the trial court did not err in failing to order another competency evaluation for Minnick. The trial court said it would take the attorney’s request under advisement. The court found Minnick was very clear and concise in his allocution, and his attorney did not contradict the judge in these statements or point to any indication Minnick was incompetent during the hearing.


 

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. 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.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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!

  4. 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.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT