ILNews

Opinions Dec. 6, 2013

December 6, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Everett Sweet v. State of Indiana
35A02-1305-PC-451
Post conviction. Affirms denial of Sweet’s pro se petition for post-conviction relief. He argued had he not received ineffective counsel on his motion to suppress, the state’s evidence against him would have been suppressed and he would not have pleaded guilty to Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine. This is not a permissible basis to collaterally attack a guilty plea in Indiana.

Michelle Orr Carpenter v. State of Indiana
77A01-1306-CR-293
Criminal. Reverses revocation of probation. The state did not present sufficient evidence to show that Carpenter committed the alleged probation violation during the term of her probation.

Tracy L. Oedzes v. Bryan S. Oedzes (NFP)
45A03-1302-DR-67
Domestic relation. Affirms denial of Tracy Oedzes’ motion for rule to show cause alleging her ex-husband violated the terms of their divorce decree.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions 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