ILNews

Opinions Feb. 17, 2011

February 17, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Ahmad Foster v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1005-CR-579
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to modify sentence.

Joseph L. Robinson, III v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1002-CR-142
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony dealing in cocaine and adjudication as a habitual substance offender.

Terry W. Dimmett v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1003-CR-120
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine and Class D felony possession of precursors with intent to manufacture methamphetamine.

David A. Hottman, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
21A04-1006-CR-439
Criminal. Reverses sentence following guilty plea to two counts of Class A felony dealing a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a public park. Remands with instructions.

Nathan D. Simpson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1005-CR-649
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class C felony child molesting.

Antoine Hill v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1008-PC-410
Post conviction. Reverses denial of petition for post-conviction relief and remands with instructions.

E.W. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
28A04-1009-JV-612
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication as a delinquent child for committing Class A misdemeanor criminal mischief if committed by an adult.

Kevin T. Pettiford v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A02-1004-CR-572
Criminal. Affirms revocation of home detention with Delaware County Community Corrections.

James Edens v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A04-1007-CR-518
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class A felony dealing in methamphetamine.

Indiana Tax 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