ILNews

Opinions July 11, 2013

July 11, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Danny Harmon
12-1502
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Jane E. Magnus-Stinson.
Criminal. Affirms convictions of marijuana conspiracy and related offenses and 360-month sentence. A trial continuance did not violate his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial and the disclosure of Harmon’s prior drug conviction did not deprive him of a fair trial. The court did not make a mistake in finding Harmon responsible for more than 10,000 kilograms of marijuana.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Lindsay Tatusko v. State of Indiana
29A04-1208-CR-413
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felony forgery and Class D felony theft. Tatusko’s electronic alteration of an authorized tip amount constitutes forgery. She also hasn’t shown she was denied effective assistance of trial counsel.

Kenneth Smith v. State of Indiana

49A02-1212-CR-1017
Criminal. Affirms order Smith pay $1,380 in restitution to William Kirkham. The trial court did not err when it allowed the state to present evidence at the restitution hearing of the victim’s actual loss that was not presented during Smith’s theft trial. The trial court also inquired into Smith’s ability to pay restitution.

In the Matter of the Paternity and Maternity of Infant T.
67A05-1301-JP-36
Juvenile. Reverses denial of father M.F.’s request to establish paternity and affirms the denial of surrogate M.F.’s petition to disestablish maternity. Her request is not cognizable so the trial court properly denied it. Indiana law presumes the birth mother is the child’s biological mother. Remands for the trial court to enter an order establishing M.F.’s paternity.

Robert M. Gates v. City of Indianapolis
49A04-1210-OV-503
Ordinance violation. Reverses denial of Gates’ request for a jury trial on three municipal ordinances the city alleges Gates violated. The nature of the underlying substantive claims brought against him is quasi-criminal, and he is entitled to a jury trial under Article I, Section 20 of the Indiana Constitution. Remands with instructions to grant the jury trial request.

Paul Monet Fontaine v. State of Indiana (NFP)

45A03-1211-CR-476
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class C felony forgery.

Cecilia Kelly v. GEPA Hotel Owner Indianapolis LLC, GEPA Hotel Operator Indianapolis LLC, and Schindler Elevator Corporation (NFP)
49A04-1210-CT-509
Civil tort. Reverses grant of summary judgment in favor of GEPA Hotel Owners Indianapolis, GEPA Hotel Operator and Schindler Elevator Corp. on Kelly’s negligence lawsuit.

David L. Howard v. State of Indiana (NFP)

46A04-1212-PC-639
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Dana L. Smith v. James L. Smith (NFP
)
49A05-1210-DR-554
Domestic relation. Affirms order denying Dana Smith’s motion to correct error following the entry of the decree dissolving the Smiths’ marriage. Remands with instructions for the trial court to add an exhibit nunc pro tunc and to redistribute the decree to the parties.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no 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