ILNews

Opinions June 27, 2012

June 27, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Supreme Court opinion was posted after IL deadline Tuesday:
Michael Sharp v. State of Indiana
12S02-1109-CR-544
Criminal. Affirms sentence for two counts of child molesting, one as a Class A felony and one as a Class C felony. Holds that credit time status may be considered by an appellate court exercising its review and revise authority. Finds that Sharp’s sentence of 40 years, with a minimum possible sentence of 34.29 years after taking into account credit time, is appropriate.

Wednesday’s opinions
7th Circuit Court of Appeals

A.B., a child by his next friend, Linda Kehoe v. Housing Authority of South Bend
11-2581
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, Chief Judge Philip P. Simon.
Civil. Dismisses appeal of the order denying A.B.’s motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent the housing authority from pursuing the eviction in state court. Since A.B. has already been evicted, the appeal is moot.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Gunther Kranz and Carol Kranz v. Meyers Subdivision Property Owners Association, Inc., Christopher Bartoszek, and Indiana Dept. of Natural Resources
75A03-1112-PL-577
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court affirmation of the decision by the administrative law judge that easement holders should be allowed to have a group pier on Bass Lake and the Kranzes should move their pier to accommodate the group pier. The Natural Resources Commission has jurisdiction to render a decision regarding property rights to the extent necessary to implement the permit process and the only effect of the NRC’s decision on the Kranzes’ property rights was to relocate the pier. The pier was no less usable in the location chosen by the NRC.

Fili Moala v. State of Indiana
49A02-1109-CR-870
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class C misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated due to double jeopardy violations. The operating while intoxicated conviction has the less severe penal consequences. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor public intoxication. Remands with instructions to vacate the Class C misdemeanor conviction.

Cory Heinzman v. State of Indiana
29A02-1012-CR-1327
Criminal. Affirms convictions of three counts of Class C felony child molesting in one cause and conviction following guilty plea to Class D felony sexual battery in another cause. The delay in Heinzman’s trial did not violate his constitutional right to a speedy trial, the admission of certain evidence was allowed, and there is no error in his sentence.

 

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