ILNews

Opinions Feb. 28, 2011

February 28, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
David E. Schalk v. State of Indiana
53A01-1005-CR-210
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor attempted possession of marijuana. Schalk arranged a drug buy to try to discredit a witness against his client. An attorney is not exempt from criminal law even if his only purpose is the defense of his client.

Tommie L. Dye v. State of Indiana
49A02-1007-CR-741
Criminal. Reverses conviction of failure to register as a sex offender as a Class C felony. Given the fact that Dye is illiterate, was not assisted when registering, and complied with Indiana Code Section 11-8-8-12(c) by appearing in person every seven days, the evidence is insufficient to convict him of failing to register as a sex offender.

Derrick Smith v. State of Indiana
79A04-1003-CR-139
Criminal. Vacates convictions of conspiracy to commit dealing in cocaine and dealing in cocaine, which were merged. Smith did not waive his right to be tried within 70 days and the trial court erred by not dismissing the charges.

B & B, LLC v. Lake Erie Land Company
45A04-1002-PL-183
Civil plenary. Reverses trial court’s grant of Lake Erie’s motion for judgment on the evidence and remands for further proceedings. The trial court erred in determining that B&B’s action was barred by the common enemy doctrine and that its claims against Lake Erie should have been permitted to proceed.

Hannah Lakes v. Grange Mutual Casualty Company
89A05-1009-CT-549
Civil tort. Reverses summary judgment for Grange Mutual. Finds Lakes is entitled to underinsured motorist coverage under her sister’s policy and that $44,900 is available to her under Grange Mutual’s coverage.

Jezrael Vaughn v. State of Indiana (NFP)
58A05-1007-CR-469
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony dealing in a controlled substance.

Terrence T. Miller v. State of Indiana (NFP)
09A02-1009-CR-1014
Criminal. Affirms denial of request to withdraw guilty plea to Class B felony armed robbery.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of K.S.; T.S. & R.D. v. IDCS (NFP)
27A02-1007-JT-816
Juvenile. Dismisses cause with prejudice because the parents failed to timely file a notice of appeal.

M.A.-G. v. J.G. (NFP)
30A05-1002-DR-230
Domestic relation. Affirms denial of M.A.-G.’s motion to relocate.

Eric Markwith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1007-CR-756
Criminal. Affirms revocation of placement in community corrections.

Rebecca Zoborosky v. Brian Zoborosky (NFP)
46A04-1010-DR-702
Domestic relation. Affirms dissolution decree that divided the marital assets.

Khaleeq Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1007-CR-415
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license.

Barry Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
27A04-1006-CR-374
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Tyrone L. Jones v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1006-PC-687
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

D.H. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1005-JV-540
Juvenile. Affirms the true finding that D.H. committed Class C felony child molesting if committed by an adult.

Constance Phillips v. State of Indiana (NFP)
31A01-1007-CR-409
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and order Phillips serve part of the suspended portions of her sentences.

Merritt A. Salyer v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A05-1006-CR-419
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony resisting law enforcement, and Class A misdemeanors resisting law enforcement and operating a vehicle on a highway while license is suspended or revoked.

The Paternity of M.C.; A.H. . Mi.C. (NFP)
30A01-1005-JP-256
Criminal. Affirms order awarding physical custody of daughter to Mi.C.

Gregory Jacob v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1004-CR-584
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony criminal deviate conduct, Class C felony intimidation, Class C felony sexual battery, and Class B felony criminal confinement. Reverses sentence and remands with instructions for the trial court to issue an order and make any other docket entries necessary to revise Jacob’s sentence for criminal confinement, as a Class B felony, to 16 years.

Gregory Sausaman v. Jennifer Hutchens (NFP)
43A03-1008-DR-421
Domestic relation. Reverses order granting Hutchens’ motion for judgment on the evidence on Sausaman’s motion for a change of custody. Remands for further proceedings.

Eric Daniels v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1005-CR-513
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Angela L. Bauer v. David B. Bauer (NFP)
22A05-1003-DR-191
Domestic relation. Affirms order denying Angela’s motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 60(B).

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.


The Indiana Supreme Court granted 4 transfers and denied 25 for the week ending Feb. 25.
 

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