ILNews

Opinions March 12, 2013

March 12, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
Curtis A. Bethea v. State of Indiana
18S05-1206-PC-304
Post conviction. Affirms trial court denial of post-conviction relief, holding that Curtis Bethea, who pleaded guilty to armed robbery and criminal confinement in a deal that dropped seven other felony counts, was not improperly denied post-conviction relief when a judge considered evidence of charges that were dismissed.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Henry Keith Holloway v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A05-1202-CR-58
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony operating a vehicle after lifetime suspension and Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated.

Jennifer Duff v. State of Indiana (NFP)

89A01-1206-CR-280
Criminal. Affirms aggregate executed sentence of 18 years in prison for conviction of one Class B felony count of dealing in a Schedule I controlled substance; eight counts of Class C felony forgery; one count of Class C felony robbery; five counts of Class D felony theft; and three counts of Class C felony fraud.

Brian L. Spurlock, Sally M. Spurlock v. Morequity, Inc. (NFP)

29A04-1207-MF-345
Mortgage foreclosure. Dismisses appeal from an entry of a foreclosure judgment against the Spurlocks.

Kevin Burrell v. State of Indiana (NFP)

71A05-1208-CR-434
Criminal. Affirms conviction and aggregate sentence of 105 years in prison for two counts of Class A felony attempted murder, Class C felony criminal recklessness and a criminal gang activity sentence enhancement.

Kenneth D. Helton v. State of Indiana (NFP)

47A01-1205-CR-200
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine, Class D felony possession of marijuana and Class D felony maintaining a common nuisance, remanding to the trial court to correct a sentencing error. The appeals panel left in place an aggregate sentence of 23 years in prison but instructed the trial court to enhance the dealing in methamphetamine conviction by eight years instead of sentencing him separately for being a habitual substance offender.

John Ivy v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A02-1205-PC-378
Post conviction. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief from a 65-year sentence for a conviction of murder, concluding the post-conviction court erred in finding that Ivy had waived two issues, but notwithstanding that error, Ivy failed to demonstrate he was entitled to post-conviction relief on any of his claims.

Gary Gardner v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A05-1207-PC-379
Post conviction. Affirms in a divided opinion denial of post-conviction relief from a 90-year sentence for three counts of Class A felony child molesting, one count of Class C felony child molesting, and one count of Class C felony child exploitation. Senior Judge Betty Barteau and Judge Terry Crone formed the majority from which Judge Elaine Brown dissented, concluding that Gardner demonstrated ineffective counsel assistance because his appellate counsel failed to raise an issue related to the length of his sentence. Brown would find the trial court thus erred and remand for further proceedings.

Indiana 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. 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