ILNews

Man’s molestation post-conviction bid fails on appeal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Morgan County man failed to convince a Court of Appeals panel that ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct should entitle him to relief from a child molestation conviction.

In William Hinesley, III v. State of Indiana, 55A05-1302-PC-80, Hinesley appealed denial of post-conviction relief from the Class A felony conviction for which he was sentenced to an aggregate term of 25 years in prison. He claimed his counsel failed to object to hearsay and double-hearsay from police regarding what witnesses said.

But the panel noted that Hinesley’s defender testified to the post-conviction court that he didn’t object because he was pursuing a strategy of presenting the varying accounts of key witnesses to the alleged molestation, including Hinesley’s son.

“We cannot say that the post-conviction court erred when it concluded that defense counsel’s trial strategy was reasonable under the unique circumstances of this case,” Judge Terry Crone wrote for the panel that also ruled Hinesley had waived his claim of prosecutorial misconduct.

Hinesley also objected to his attorney’s failure to introduce the medical report from a physical examination of the victim taken the day after the molestation that Hinesley claimed would have helped his case. “We cannot say that the medical report has the same exculpatory value that Hinesley now assigns it such that the result of the trial would have been different had counsel introduced it,” Crone wrote.

The panel also rejected Hinesley’s argument that the cumulative impact of his counsel’s poor decisions prejudiced his case. Hinesley cannot demonstrate the trial would have been different absent the claimed errors, Crone 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. 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