ILNews

Opinions Feb. 25, 2011

February 25, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following opinion was posted after IL deadline Thursday
Indiana Supreme Court
Jason D. Miller v. State of Indiana
08S02-1102-CR-108
Criminal. Grants transfer and remands for re-sentencing. Summarily affirms the remainder of the Court of Appeals opinion. The trial court amended the sentence to 30 years with no time suspended. This sentence was authorized, but the transcript suggests the trial court did so because it thought the state was correct in asserting that Indiana Code Section 35-50-2-2(i) required a minimum sentence of 30 years for a conviction of Class A felony child molesting. As indicated, however, a sentence of less than 30 years could have been imposed because section 2(i) does not set a minimum sentence.

Today’s opinions
Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Brian Holtzleiter v. Angela Holtzleiter
48A02-1006-DR-736
Domestic relation. Reverses denial of Brian’s petition to modify child support. He hasn’t waived his argument that he is entitled to modification of child support under the requirement that the current support obligation was 20 percent different from what would be required under the guidelines and it had been at least a year since the support order was issued. Remands for the issuance of a new child support order.

Paternity of D.L.; C.L. v. Y.B.
88A01-1002-JP-224
Juvenile. Grants rehearing to clarify the original opinion regarding the determination that the trial court erred in denying C.L.’s request to terminate his child support arrearage and affirms in all respects.

The Town of Plainfield, Indiana v. Paden Engineering Co., et al.
32A04-1005-PL-280
Civil plenary. Affirms orders granting partial summary judgment to Paden Engineering and Merchants Bonding Co. and Everest Reinsurance Co. on Plainfield’s claims for damages for breach of contract and for payment upon a performance bond. Paden has demonstrated the absence of a genuine issue of material fact and its entitlement to partial summary judgment as a matter of law upon Plainfield’s contractual claim for damages. The sureties have demonstrated the absence of a genuine issue of material fact and their entitlement to partial summary judgment as a matter of law upon Plainfield’s contractual claim for payment under a performance bond.

Monica Sexton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
30A01-1008-CR-479
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony aiding in obstruction of justice and reverses conviction of Class D felony conspiracy to commit aiding in obstruction of justice. Remands with instructions to vacate the conspiracy conviction and amend the sentencing order as appropriate.

Timothy J. Wilson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1007-CR-725
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and 20-year sentence for Class B felony incest, Class D felony dissemination of a matter harmful to a minor, and Class A misdemeanor contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

Jeffery M. Ogle v. State of Indiana (NFP)
09A02-1007-CR-779
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony domestic battery and vacates Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct conviction. Remands for a corrected sentencing order.

Carl S. Howard v. State of Indiana (NFP)
90A04-1010-CR-615
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony receiving stolen property.

C.C. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1008-JV-440
Juvenile. Affirms placement of C.C. in the Department of Correction.

David Pemberton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1008-CR-516
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion requesting jail time credit in the amount of 769 days.

Knitcraft Corporation v. Raleigh Limited, Inc. (NFP)
49A04-1007-CC-397
Civil collections. Affirms judgment in favor of Raleigh in Knitcraft’s complaint for damages for breach of contract after it cancelled an order from Knitcraft.

Sayburt Huff v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1006-CR-392
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony voluntary manslaughter.

D.P.T. Inc., et al. v. Western Union Financial Services (NFP)
49A04-1007-CC-426
Civil collections. Affirms summary judgment for Western Union in its suit against D.P.T. after someone used D.P.T.’s Western Union account to make several fraudulent transfers.

Thomas J. Towne v. Cindy Towne and State of Indiana (NFP)
68A05-1009-DR-585
Domestic relation. Affirms order finding Thomas in contempt for failure to pay child support to Cindy. Remands with instructions to amend the trial court order.

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