ILNews

Opinions Jan. 25, 2013

January 25, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
The following opinion was released after IL deadline Thursday.

Carlin Iltzsch v. State of Indiana
49S02-1301-CR-57
Criminal. Reverses Court of Appeals order vacating a judgment of restitution against a criminal defendant, holding that such orders may be reviewed by the court and remanded for rehearing when evidence is insufficient to support the order.

Indiana Court of Appeals
David Delagrange v. State of Indiana
49A04-1203-CR-144
Criminal. Reversed conviction of four counts of Class C felony attempted child exploitation and remanded for further proceedings. Ruled Delagrange’s act of secretly photographing minor girls’ underwear did not meet the Indiana statute’s definition of “child exploitation” because the girls did not intentionally expose themselves for the purpose of satisfying or arousing sexual desires of another.

Robertson Fowler v. State of Indiana
49A05-1202-PC-68
Criminal. Affirms on rehearing earlier denial of post-conviction relief for Robertson Fowler  sentenced to a maximum of 35 years in prison for his conviction of possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon with an enhancement as a habitual offender. Because Fowler received the benefit of charges against him being dropped when he pleaded guilty, his conviction was not in conflict with the Indiana Supreme Court’s subsequent ruling in Mills v. State, 868 N.E.2d 446, 450 (Ind. 2007) or a differing Court of Appeals ruling, Dugan v. State, 976 N.E.2d 1248, 1249.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: D.T., (Minor Child), and T.S. (Father) v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services
49A02-1205-JT-420

Juvenile. Affirms termination of a juvenile father’s parental rights, holding that his due process rights were not violated when the trial court did not appoint a guardian ad litem for him.

David McCombs v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1111-PC-658
Post conviction. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief involving 62-year sentence on charges of murder, theft and carrying handgun without a license.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of D.C., Minor Child; A.R., Mother, and S.C., Father v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services, Lake County CASA (NFP)
45A03-1204-JT-172
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Dale D. Engle v. State of Indiana (NFP)
58A04-1205-CR-244
Criminal. Affirms 12-year sentence for conviction of Class B felony dealing in a controlled substance.

Charles Kingery v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1204-CR-317
Affirms 55-year murder sentence following resentencing on a reduced felony robbery charge.

Ricky J. Thurston v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1204-CR-289
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony rape and adjudication as a habitual offender.

D.J. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1206-JV-490
Criminal. Affirms adjudication as a delinquent for what would be Class D felony theft and Class A misdemeanor dangerous possession of a firearm if committed by an adult.

Paul Hoffert, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
84A05-1205-CR-273
Criminal. Affirms revocation of placement in work release.

Kip Hurt v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1206-CR-286
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor battery.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court issued no opinions by IL deadline Friday. U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana opinions by IL deadline Friday.
 

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