ILNews

Opinions Feb. 23, 2012

February 23, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

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

Indiana Court of Appeals

Eriberto Quiroz v. State of Indiana
49A02-1107-CR-577
Criminal. Reverses Quiroz’s conviction of Class C felony child molesting because that conviction along with a Class A felony child molesting conviction constitutes double jeopardy as the same evidence supports both convictions. Remands for the trial court to vacate the Class C felony conviction. The trial court did not commit fundamental error in including in the jury instructions a copy of the charging information that included the counts against Quiroz that had previously been dismissed.

Bernard Short v. State of Indiana
49A02-1105-CR-403
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the results of the certified chemical breath test nor did it err by rejecting Short’s proposed jury instruction.

Keith Woodson v. State of Indiana
49A02-1108-PC-768
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief. The post-conviction court was not clearly erroneous in finding that attorney Harper’s cross-examination of Owens and Johnson was not ineffective and that Harper was not ineffective for not attempting to procure the services of an eyewitness identification expert for Woodson’s second trial.

In the Matter of the Guardianship of John S. Zakrowski; Marsha L. Cummins v. Thomas L. Zakrowski (NFP)
71A03-1105-GU-259
Guardianship. Affirms denial of Cummins’ application for permission to participate in the guardianship proceedings.

S.D. v. B.D. (NFP)
41A01-1104-DR-170
Domestic relation. Affirms granting primary physical custody to mother. Reverses finding of contempt for father’s failure to pay for day care.

Sandra Rivas v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1106-CR-544
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft.

Jeffrey Roser v. Jennifer Roser (NFP)
38A02-1106-DR-502
Domestic relation. Affirms decision to lower father’s obligation to the minimum support obligation and remands for the trial court to revise the obligation to $18.

Daniel O'Reilly v. Ruth Doherty (NFP)
29A04-1108-DR-399
Domestic relation. Affirms order husband pay $30,000 of wife’s attorney fees.

Charles Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
58A01-1104-CR-191
Criminal. Affirms 20-year sentence for Class B felony dealing in a schedule II controlled substance.

Kenneth Willis Gibbs-El v. Arthur Hegewald (NFP)
49A02-1107-CT-747
Civil tort. Affirms dismissal of Gibbs-El’s complaint against a former employee of the Indiana Department of Correction.

Hawkins Auto Stores, Inc. v. Brent F. Hehr (NFP)
89A01-1110-SC-461
Small claim. Affirms order that Hawkins Auto Stores pay Hehr $3,395 for repayment of funds paid by Hehr for services he never received.

Joseph Apongule v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A04-1109-CR-543
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated.
 

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