7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United
States of America v. Lawrence Taylor
10-1304
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, Judge Robert L. Miller Jr.
Criminal. Affirms Taylor’s sentences for bank robbery and for violating terms of his supervised release relating to
an earlier bank robbery conviction, but orders a limited remand. The District Court erred by treating the policy statement
recommendation in U.S.S.G. Section 7B1.3(f) as mandating consecutive sentencing for Taylor’s 2008 bank robbery case
and his supervised release case.
Indiana Supreme Court
Anthony D. Delarosa v. State of Indiana
29S00-0911-CR-531
Criminal. On direct appeal, affirms convictions of and sentences of life without parole and one fifty-year sentence for two
counts of murder and one count of conspiracy to commit murder.
Indiana Court of Appeals
James McGraw v. State of Indiana
49A04-1004-CR-238
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea to Class B felony dealing in cocaine. McGraw didn’t establish
the withdrawal of his plea is necessary to correct a manifest injustice.
Sherene M. Poling v. State of Indiana
90A05-1006-CR-421
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft. The trial court didn’t abuse its discretion by refusing to instruct
the jury on criminal conversion because there was no serious evidentiary dispute regarding Poling’s intent to deprive
the store of the cigarettes’ value or use. She waived her claim of prosecutorial misconduct and could not show fundamental
error.
Paternity of D.L.; C.L. v. Y.B.
88A01-1002-JP-224
Juvenile. Reverses denial of C.L.’s request to be relieved from paying a child support arrearage because a paternity
test showed he isn’t D.L.’s biological father. Because C.L.’s paternity was vacated due to mistake of fact,
his child support and any arrearage must be terminated. Remands with instructions.
James Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1002-PC-365
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.
James Ross v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-0912-CR-710
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation. Remands for determination of whether Ross is entitled to jail time credit.
Tyrone L. Townsell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
89A01-1005-CR-232
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony possession of marijuana.
Douglas N. White v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A05-1004-CR-317
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and imposition of entire suspended sentence.
Ryan Rogers v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A05-1005-CR-265
Criminal. Affirms conviction of neglect of a dependent as a Class B felony.
Christopher M. Sutton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
01A05-1002-CR-75
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony child molesting.
Arenzo Richmond v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1004-CR-449
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentences for confinement, robbery, and attempted robbery, all as Class B felonies.
Remands for the trial court to amend the abstract of judgment. Judge Barnes dissents in part.
Rodney Roscoe v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1004-CR-456
Criminal. Affirms convictions of operating a vehicle while intoxicated as a Class A misdemeanor and driving while suspended
as a Class A misdemeanor.
D.B. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1004-JV-294
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication as a delinquent for committing what would be Class C felony child molesting, Class A misdemeanor
resisting law enforcement, and Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief if committed by an adult.
Chretien Arnold v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1004-CR-210
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class B felony robbery.
Walter Angermeier, et al. v. Indiana Farmers Mutual Ins. Group (NFP)
65A04-1004-PL-230
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment for Indiana Farmers Mutual Insurance Group in Angermeier’s suit that it breached
its duty to deal with Angermeier in good faith.
Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.














The court of appeals not only tries to rewrite or interpret the law to suit their fancy, now they choose play stupid as well. Every consideration must be given to pro se litigants, who are not held to the same standards as attorneys, as stated by,SCOTUS. I assume they didn't have a lawyer, since one wasn't mentioned and I strongly suggest thatb the rest of the, origional petitioners get back in there and fight for their rights.
the irony of situations like this is that the clients whom conour cheated are the ones who should be pulling hardest for him to remain free and keep his law license, so they have some hopes of him paying back. really bury the guy deep and then there will be little hope of restitution
Qualified immunity, means that if you wear a badge, you are exempt from law and free to do anything you please! The courts will back badge toting individuals, because they think they are above the law as well. They think, they have judicial immunity, they do not.
Deeply, deeply concerned? I'll bet if it was the judge's money that had been swindled we'd see deep concern with actual consequences. First a Ponzi scheme, then a shell game with the assets…c'mon, hasn't Conour abused the judicial system and his clients long enough? I say enough already.
Wow, just wow.