ILNews

Opinions Dec. 18, 2012

December 18, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Timothy Schepers v. State of Indiana
22A01-1201-CR-39
Criminal. Affirms on interlocutory appeal a trial court denial of a motion to dismiss several drug charges and a Class C felony count of neglect of a dependent. The court held that Schepers’ filing of a pro se motion for a speedy trial and motion to dismiss for violation of Criminal Rule 4 were filed while he was represented by a public defender and that he did not clearly and unequivocally assert his right to self-representation. Remands cause for trial.

Dan Stranahan v. Debra Haines (NFP)
52A02-1205-DR-399
Domestic relation. Reverses denial of Stranahan’s petition to terminate maintenance obligation and remands with instructions for the court to enter an order granting Stranahan’s petition.

Trenton Jones v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1112-CR-594
Criminal. Affirms refusal to give instruction to jury on involuntary manslaughter and finds the state produced sufficient evidence to sustain Jones’ conviction of murder.

Michael Dominique v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A02-1205-CR-424
Criminal.  Affirms sentence for Class C felonies battery resulting in serious bodily injury and burglary. Remands for a correction to the sentencing order.
 

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