ILNews

Opinions Jan. 29, 2013

January 29, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
John Alden v. State of Indiana
30A01-1209-CR-412
Criminal. Affirmed trial court’s denial of petition to reduce Alden’s Class D felony conviction for operating while intoxicated to a Class A misdemeanor. In a review of the state statute covering the sentencing range for Class D felonies, the COA found the statute contained the word “may” instead of “shall” which gives the courts the freedom to deny petitions.

Michael L. Curtis v. State of Indiana

49A02-1203-MI-271
Miscellaneous. Reversed and remanded with instructions the trial court’s denial of Curtis’ Indiana Trial Rule 60(B) motion for relief from judgment following the forfeiture of his truck. The COA ruled that the pirated movies Curtis was selling from his truck do not constitute stolen or converted property and therefore he is not subject to I.C. 34-24-1-1(a)(1)(B), which allows forfeiture only in cases of theft or conversion but says nothing about copyright infringement.  

Seth Anderson v. Huntington County Board of Commissioners
35A04-1207-MI-357
Miscellaneous/public records. In a case of first impression, affirmed a public access counselor ruling that a request for emails that sought those to and from four public officials over a specified time period did not meet the requirement of the Access to Public Records Act that the requests be made with “reasonable particularity.” Even though records ultimately were provided as initially requested after a suit was filed, judges held that the PAC ruling and the county’s initial denial of the records for lack of reasonable particularity were not ARPA violations.

Kelly Coots v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A05-1203-CR-155
Criminal. Affirms sentence of a maximum of three years in prison on a conviction of Class D felony theft.

Jeffrey A. Booth v. State of Indiana (NFP)
84A01-1203-CR-118
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine and Class D felony possession of methamphetamime.

Rudy J. Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
53A04-1202-PC-280
Post conviction. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief.

Clarence Johnson v. Juana Johnson (NFP)
45A03-1202-DR-94
Domestic relations/dissolution. Affirms judgment of trial court in all respects.

Madelyn Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A02-1205-CR-408
Criminal. Affirms 10-year executed sentence for convictions of Class B felony neglect of a dependent, two counts of Class B felony battery, and three counts of Class D felony battery.

In Re: The Paternity of K.G.; J.G. and S.S. and A.S. (NFP)
49A05-1206-JP-307
Juvenile. Affirms trial court order awarding mother S.S. custody of daughter K.G.

Accessabilities, Inc. v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development (NFP)
93A02-1207-EX-551
Executive administration/worker’s compensation. Affirms Department of Workforce Development Review Board decision that an employee was not discharged for just cause.

Denise Polak and Dianne Rose and Dianne Rose, Lake County Trust Co., as Trustee for Trust #6041, and Jeanne Collins Living Trust, Dianne Rose, Trustee v. Tiffiny Jordan (NFP)
64A05-1205-PL-284
Civil plenary. Reverses trial court ruling joining Polak as a party to a suit filed by Jordan.

Ray Ortega v. Susko Corp., Inc., d/b/a Our Place (NFP)

45A03-1205-CT-219
Civil tort. Affirms trial court grant of judgment on the evidence in favor of Susko.

Lanard E. Foster v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A04-1207-CR-390
Criminal. Affirms concurrent three-year sentences for convictions of Class D felony domestic battery in the presence of a child under age 16 and Class D felony domestic battery with a prior domestic battery conviction.

Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court issued no opinions by IL deadline. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana opinions 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. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. 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.

  3. 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!!!

  4. 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!

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT