ILNews

Opinions April 15, 2014

April 15, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Marcus Henderson
13-2483
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to suppress and conviction of being a drug user in possession of firearms in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g)(3). Rejects Henderson’s argument that the firearms were discovered pursuant to an unconstitutional search because the protective sweep of his home was unreasonable. The record is replete with specific and articulable facts which the SWAT officers reasonably relied upon to conclude that the officers or others faced a dangerous situation without a protective sweep of his house.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Lucas H. Jackson v. State of Indiana
62A04-1311-CR-563
Criminal. Reverses revocation of probation. The trial court abused its discretion by revoking the probation because it could not determine, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Jackson had actually committed a new criminal offense.

Tammy Carter v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1309-CR-752
Criminal. Affirms conviction of two counts of Class D felony neglect of a dependent.  

Edrece Bryant v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1309-CR-806
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony strangulation and Class A misdemeanor domestic battery.

Antrone Crockett v. Clair Barnes and Mark Sevier (NFP)
52A05-1306-PL-304
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Barnes and Sevier on inmate Crockett’s claim that the defendants denied him access to the courts.

Patricia Leslie v. Liberty Dialysis, Inc., Liberty Dialysis-Lebanon, LLC., Witham Memorial Hospital, and NLMP, Inc. (NFP)
06A01-1309-CT-400
Civil tort. Affirms in part, reverses in part and remands. Because the designated evidence supports a reasonable inference that Leslie slipped on ice, the grant of summary judgment for Liberty was improper. As for Witham and NLMP, however, Leslie has made no argument that they were not entitled to summary judgment on the alternate theories relating to immunity and lack of duty. In the absence of any such argument, she has not established that the entry of summary judgment for Witham and NLMP was improper.

Mark Conner v. State of Indiana (NFP)
33A01-1308-CR-355
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony theft and Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief and the finding Conner is a habitual offender. Remands for trial court to correct the sentencing order and abstract of judgment.

Lloyd W. Mezick v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1307-CR-649
Criminal. Affirms revocation of placement in a community corrections program.

Regina Choice v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1306-CR-227
Criminal. Affirms two-year sentence for Class D felony theft.

Kenton T. Winder v. State of Indiana (NFP)
10A04-1309-CR-461
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class B felonies robbery and criminal confinement as well as Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license. Remands with instructions to correct the abstract of judgment.

Jason R. Barton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A05-1307-CR-355
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion for immediate discharge from unlawful and illegal imprisonment.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court did not post any opinions by IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

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