ILNews

Opinions Feb. 17, 2012

February 17, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following opinions were posted after IL deadline Thursday:
Indiana Supreme Court

Amir H. Sanjari v. State of Indiana
20S03-1105-CR-268
Criminal. Holds that Indiana Code Section 35-46-1-5 permits a separate Class D felony conviction for nonsupport of each dependent child, but only one such offense may be enhanced to a Class C felony where the unpaid support for one or more of such children is $15,000 or more. Orders one conviction of nonsupport of a dependent as a Class C felony conviction entered as to one child and one Class D felony entered as to the other child and that Sanjari be resentenced accordingly.

Indiana Tax Court
Tipton County Health Care Foundation, Inc, f/k/a Tipton County Memorial Hospital Foundation v. Tipton County Assessor
49T10-1101-TA-6
Tax. Affirms that the Indiana Board of Tax Review properly determined that the Tipton County Health Care Foundation Inc. failed to raise a prima facie case that its assisted living facility is exempt from property tax under Indiana Code 6-1.1-10-16. Given that the record in this case simply does not indicate whether Miller’s Health System – which operates the facility – has a charitable purpose or a profit motive, the court agrees with the Indiana board’s finding that the foundation failed to raise a prima facie case that Autumnwood is entitled to a charitable purposes exemption.

Friday’s opinions
7th Circuit Court of Appeals

United States of America v. Samuel T. Henzel
11-2293
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Tanya Walton Pratt.
Criminal. Affirms 135-month sentence imposed following guilty plea to traveling across state lines with the intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct. The District Court miscalculated the imprisonment range favorably to Henzel, and the sentence imposed is actually within the correctly calculated range.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Barry Cook v. State of Indiana (NFP)
27A05-1107-CR-402
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class B felony possession of cocaine and remands with instructions.

Todd A. Gray, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A05-1106-CR-308
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony attempted robbery.

Robert Kemp v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1107-CR-338
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felonies rape and criminal deviate conduct.
 

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