ILNews

Judges uphold man’s convictions for stealing from neighbor

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Lamont Holloway argued that the state didn’t prove that he was the one who stole a television and gaming system from his neighbor, but the Indiana Court of Appeals held that the evidence supports his burglary and theft convictions.

Holloway lived in a townhome next door to Valerie Suggs, and he often saw her leave for work and return home. He also knew when her daughter returned home from school. On Oct. 26, 2011, Suggs locked up her house and left for work around 2 p.m. When her daughter returned home from school around 4:30 p.m., she discovered that the home had been broken into and several items were missing.

A television and gaming system belonging to Suggs were sold to a local pawnshop that afternoon by Holloway. He was charged with and convicted of Class B felony burglary and Class D felony theft. He received an aggregate 20-year sentence in the Department of Correction, which was enhanced because he is a habitual offender.

In Lamont Holloway v. State of Indiana, 49A02-1207-CR-548, Holloway claimed the evidence didn’t show he was the one who broke into the home, that there’s no DNA evidence linking him to the crime, and no one saw him entering or leaving Suggs’ home. He also argued the fact he was in possession of the stolen items shortly after they were taken from the home doesn’t permit a conclusion he took them.

“A reasonable inference from the evidence is that Holloway was the person who entered Suggs’ home and took the property,” Judge Elaine Brown wrote. “While the trial court could have made different inferences from the evidence, we cannot say that the inferences made by the court here were unreasonable.”
 

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT