ILNews

Opinions Jan. 24, 2013

January 24, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Danny Boling v. State of Indiana
20A04-1205-CR-237
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony attempted child molesting based on the evidence presented at trial and 45-year sentence. Finds the trial court erred in determining Boling is a credit restricted felon because a person convicted of attempted child molesting isn’t a credit restricted felon under I.C. 35-31.5-2-72(1). Remands with instructions to correct Boling’s record to remove that designation.

William Pereira and Joseph McConnell v. Monica Pereira, John LeFebre and Karen LeFebre
04A05-1205-PL-241
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment order which denied William Pereira and Joseph McConnell’s complaint to quiet title in real estate acreage bequeathed by Joseph Sleeper and allowed inheritance of a share of the acreage by John and Karen LeFebre. The trial court properly found that Julia McConnell Tarr had a vested interest not contingent upon outliving the last surviving life tenant.  

Diano L. Gordon v. State of Indiana
49A05-1205-CR-242
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felonies attempted residential entry and escape. The show-up identification was not unduly suggestive and Gordon failed to object to the witness’s in-court identification of him. Rejects Gordon’s argument that his escape conviction should be reversed by application of the rule of lenity.

Terry Pounds v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A02-1206-PC-456
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petitions for post-conviction relief.

P.P. v. J.C. (NFP)
36A01-1203-DR-113
Domestic relation. Affirms denial of father’s petition to modify custody and child support.

E. Paul Haste v. State of Indiana (NFP)
03A05-1207-CR-378
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine, but reverses $90,000 restitution order and remands for the trial court to reduce it to $30,722. Judge Crone concurs in part and dissents in part.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions at 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. 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