ILNews

Opinions Feb. 19, 2013

February 19, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
Ronald B. Hawkins v. State of Indiana
20S03-1208-DR-499
Domestic relation. Vacates convictions of two counts of Class C felony nonsupport of a dependent where Hawkins was tried in absentia. The record indicates that Hawkins’ failure to appear at trial did not constitute a waiver of his right to counsel. Remands for a new trial.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Ernesto Roberto Ramirez v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A05-1204-CR-224
Criminal. Affirms convictions of murder and Class D felony criminal gang activity.

Brandon E. Klein v. State of Indiana (NFP)

79A02-1201-CR-38
Criminal. Affirms convictions and sentence for Class D felony intimidation and Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy.

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of S.K.W. and D.L.W.J.: D.W. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services and Lake County Court Appointed Special Advocate (NFP)
45A03-1206-JT-293
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Thomas Clements v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1205-CR-200
Criminal. Reverses denial of verified petition to limit access to criminal history and vacates the trial court order.

Olie McNeal v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1207-CR-364
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor battery.

Megan Parker v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A05-1206-CR-327
Criminal. Affirms conviction of carrying a handgun without a license as a Class A misdemeanor.

Bradley Franks v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1205-CR-256
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Daniel Miller v. State of Indiana (NFP)
88A01-1205-CR-228
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class A felony burglary and Class B felony rape.

Tyrone Frazier v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A02-1202-PC-113
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Metropolitan Property & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Gary Darland (NFP)
53A01-1204-PL-179
Civil plenary. Affirms a covered loss under the MetLife policy occurred and the trial court properly awarded Darland $42,370 for the total loss of a boat and trailer. Reverses loss of use damages to Darland for the 2010 boating season.

Ricky L. Flake v. State of Indiana (NFP)
73A05-1207-CR-356
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony operating a vehicle after suspension.

Luke White v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1206-CR-477
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony aggravated battery and Class C felony battery.

Anthony E. Thomas v. State of Indiana (NFP)

20A03-1208-CR-377
Criminal. Affirms revocation of placement in work release center.

The Indiana Tax Court issued 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. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. 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.

  3. 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!!!

  4. 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!

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT