ILNews

Opinions August 12, 2013

August 12, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Thomas H. Hurlow v. United States of America
12-1374
Criminal. Reverses the district court’s denial of Hurlow’s 2255 petition and remands for further proceedings. Rules Hurlow’s allegation - he would not have entered into the plea agreement had his counsel informed him of his potentially meritorious Fourth Amendment claim - was sufficient to overcome the wavier in his plea agreement not to contest his conviction or sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255.


Indiana Tax Court
Miller Pipeline Corporation v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue

49T10-1012-TA-64
Tax Court. Denies Miller Pipeline’s petition for partial summary judgment on its appeal of a Department of Revenue final determination denying its claim for a refund of gross retail sales and use tax paid between 2005-2007. The court held that evidence submitted in support of the motion was not properly designated and is inadmissible. The court will by separate order schedule a case management conference with parties to discuss pre-trial matters and scheduling.


Indiana Court of Appeals
Billy Savoy v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1301-CR-14
Criminal. Reverses and remands to the trial court with instructions to vacate Savoy’s conviction for theft, a Class D felony, leaving as is his conviction and sentence for criminal mischief, a Class D felony. Rules Savoy has shown that there is a reasonable possibility that the trial court used the same evidentiary facts to establish the essential elements of theft and criminal mischief thus violating Indiana’s Double Jeopardy Clause.

Martin Mendoza v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A04-1302-CR-68
Criminal. Reverses and remands the denial of Mendoza’s motion for return of his $658 taken at the time of his arrest. Rules there is no finding based on admissible evidence that Mendoza could not lawfully posses the property under the State forfeiture statutes or that Mendoza failed to file his motion properly. Consequently, the trial court was without authority to deny his motion for return of property.


Tammy Coleman v. Darryl Davis (NFP)

49A02-1210-PO-793
http://media.ibj.com/Lawyer/websites/opinions/index.php?pdf=2013/august/08121303pdm.pdf
Order of Protection. Affirms trial court’s decision to enter a protective order against Coleman and in favor of Davis. Concludes the evidence was sufficient to permit the trial court, acting as the trier of fact, to reasonably conclude that Coleman was a “family or household member” who threatened physical harm to Davis or placed Davis in fear of physical harm, thereby committing “domestic or family violence” under the Civil Protection Order Act. In his dissent, John Baker argued the evidence presented in court failed to establish a sufficient threat under the CPOA.

The Indiana Supreme Court issued no opinions before 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. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. 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.

  3. 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!!!

  4. 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!

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT