ILNews

Opinions April 17, 2012

April 17, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Kimani Lanier Fleming
11-1404
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, Judge Robert L. Miller Jr.
Criminal. Affirms Fleming’s revised sentence of 480 months imprisonment for convictions of several serious drug and firearm charges. There was no clear error in the District Court’s decision to include routine drug purchases as relevant conduct when it computed his revised sentencing guideline range. Denies Fleming’s implicit request for an expanded certificate of appealability.  

Indiana Tax Court
Utilimaster Corporation v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue
71T10-1008-TA-43
Tax. Rules Utilimaster’s attorneys are not necessary witnesses pursuant to Professional Conduct Rule 3.7, as information they could testify about can be obtained from Utilimaster employees. The Department of State Revenue has invoked Professional Conduct Rule 3.7 in an attempt to conceal its failure to timely pursue discovery as well as to remove Utilimaster’s attorneys from the case, calling their professionalism into question. The court will not countenance the rule’s abuse as a procedural weapon by invading Utilimaster’s right to counsel of its choice.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Charles Westmoreland v. State of Indiana
49A04-1107-CR-356
Criminal. Reverses denial of motion to suppress marijuana, finding the trial court erred in denying the motion because the officers did not reasonably believe Westmoreland was armed and dangerous. Remands with instructions for the trial court to dismiss the possession of marijuana charge.

Barbara (Rosario) Bessolo v. William I. Rosario
29A02-1108-DR-789
Domestic relation. Affirms finding that Bessolo failed to dismiss the protective order against Rosario as required by the dissolution decree, that she was in contempt, and the award of compensatory damages and attorney fees to Rosario. Reverses the 10-day suspended sentence imposed on Bessolo for future violations of any of the court’s orders. Because Bessolo was aware that she was required to dismiss the protective order but failed to do so and later relied upon it in her dealing with police, the trial court did not err in finding her in contempt.

Trust No. 6011, Lake County Trust Company, Trustee, Simon Beemsterboer, and Victoria J. Beemsterboer v. Heil's Haven Condominiums Homeowners Assn.
43A05-1108-PL-433
Civil plenary. Reverses the portion of paragraph 1 of the judgment that permanently enjoins the Beemsterboers from obstructing the homeowners association’s use of the walkway easement and placing a fence that blocks access to that area, paragraph 2 of the judgment ordering the couple to remove the staircase and repair the sidewalk, and paragraph 3 of the judgment prohibiting the couple from interfering with the reconstructed sidewalk. Affirms paragraph 4 in which the couple was permanently enjoined “from in any fashion interfering with the (association’s) deck.”

Gerald Mayberry v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1109-CR-879
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor interference with reporting a crime and Class B misdemeanor battery.

Jamie E. Green v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1106-CR-316
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct.

Robbie S. McCain-Ficklin v. State of Indiana (NFP)

27A02-1108-CR-767
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony battery on McCain-Ficklin’s minor stepson.

Charles Frederick Miller v. State of Indiana (NFP)

41A01-1106-CR-250
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony auto theft.

John Brooke v. State of Indiana (NFP)
75A05-1106-CR-297
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony conspiracy to commit armed robbery and 22-year sentence.

The Law Office of Deborah Agard v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development (NFP)
93A02-1107-EX-672
Agency appeal. Affirms finding that the law office owed unemployment insurance tax contributions for an individual the office paid to perform cleaning services at its office and at Kids’ Voice, a nonprofit center where Deborah Agard, the sole proprietor of the law office, serves on the board of directors.

Sterling B. Nelson v. Michelle L. Nelson (NFP)
29A05-1110-DR-533
Domestic relation. Affirms post-dissolution order, in which the trial court imputed $415 in gross weekly income to father during his 12-week period of unemployment and refused to deviate from the Child Support Guidelines.

Manuel Martinez v. State of Indiana (NFP)
57A03-1109-CR-554
Criminal. Affirms restitution order following guilty plea to battery.

Michael M. and Lana S. Ashley, et al. v. Jeffrey and Holly Spaw, et al. (NFP)
02A03-1108-MI-340
Miscellaneous. Affirms trial court’s affirmation of the Indiana Natural Resources Commission’s decision to rule in favor of several back-lot owners in the Long Lake Park subdivision regarding riparian rights.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at 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