ILNews

Opinions Feb. 7, 2011

February 7, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Ricky E. Graham v. State of Indiana
22A01-1008-PC-392
Post conviction. Affirms post-conviction relief court properly rejected Graham’s claims of an inadequate factual basis or ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, and claims of fundamental error. The PCR court’s findings don’t support its rejection of his claim that his plea was illusory or involuntary. Remands for a new PCR hearing to address that issue and the question of the effectiveness of his trial counsel on the grounds raised in his PCR petition, should he resubmit his subpoena request for his trial counsel to appear at the new hearing.

C.H., M.H. and J.S. v. J.D.
29A05-1004-DR-204
Domestic relation. Reverses grant of J.D.’s visitation petition regarding his biological child A.H., who has been adopted. Indiana Code Section 31-19-16-2 is the exclusive means for asserting visitation rights and J.D. did not follow the procedures listed therein. Remands with instructions to vacate the grant of visitation. Judge Crone concurs in result.

Jerry Ehman v. Mary Ehman
48A02-1006-DR-691
Domestic relation. Reverses $31,322 award to Mary, the full amount set forth in the original divorce decree involving her share of Jerry’s retirement account. After the decree was issued, the account declined dramatically due to a drop in the value of General Motors stock. Mary was in the best position to avoid the loss and her failure to submit the Qualified Domestic Relations Order and seek assistance from the trial court in a timely fashion contributed to the dramatic decline in the value of the personal savings plan. Remands with instructions.

Dustan Slade v. State of Indiana
38A02-1007-CR-875
Criminal. Affirms 20-year executed sentence following guilty plea to Class A felony dealing in cocaine. Judicial estoppel does not apply here, and the trial court did not erroneously conclude that his sentence was non-suspendible below 20 years when the state dismissed its firearm sentence enhancement allegation pursuant to the written plea agreement. The trial court concluded it was required to execute at least 20 years of his 30-year sentence because the judge found Slade possessed a firearm during the commission of the crime based on the pre-sentence investigation report.

Arthur Davis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1006-CR-742
Criminal. Affirms two convictions of Class B felony robbery.

Tracy J. Talley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1006-CR-641
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor trespass.

Matter of the Civil Commitment of J.G. v. Community Hospital North/Gallahue Mental Health Services (NFP)
49A02-1008-MH-835
Mental health. Affirms order involuntarily committing J.G. to the custody of Community North Hospital/Gallahue Mental Health Services for 90 days.

Dale G. Catron v. State of Indiana (NFP)
24A05-1007-CR-535
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation after Catron stopped paying restitution.

Carl Andre Coleman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A05-1008-CR-553
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for Class B felony burglary and Class D felony criminal confinement.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of Z.S. and A.P.; T.S. v. Knox County DCS (NFP)
42A01-1006-JT-312
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Lewis C. Woodward v. State of Indiana (NFP)
10A01-1008-CR-396
Criminal. Dismisses appeal of motion to dismiss charges of Class D felony sexual battery, Class D felony residential entry, and Class B misdemeanor public intoxication.

S.S. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1004-JV-493
Juvenile. Affirms order committing S.S. to the Indiana Department of Correction.

Lawrence Lusk v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1007-CR-433
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony carrying a handgun without a license with a prior conviction.

Darrick Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1008-CR-856
Criminal. Affirms aggregate 40-year sentence following convictions of Class A felony burglary and Class A felony robbery.

Paul Rogers v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1005-CR-585
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class B felony burglary and remands for a new trial.

D.K. v. Review Board (NFP)
93A02-1006-EX-639
Civil. Affirms denial of request for unemployment benefits.

James Roberson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
22A04-1001-CR-100
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea and sentence for Class A felony robbery resulting in serious bodily injury.

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