ILNews

Opinions May 10, 2012

May 10, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no opinions at IL deadline.

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

Indiana Court of Appeals

Allison Riggle v. State of Indiana
49A05-1109-CR-472
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana. The traffic stop was invalid because Riggle did not commit a traffic violation. Remands with instructions to vacate her conviction.

Latisha Lawson v. State of Indiana
02A03-1107-CR-350
Criminal. Affirms convictions of murder, Class C felony neglect of a dependent, Class D felony neglect of a dependent and Class D felony battery. There is sufficient evidence to support the jury’s rejection of Lawson’s insanity defense.

Thomas A. Neu and Elizabeth A. Neu, and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Brett Gibson
49A02-1109-MF-842
Mortgage foreclosure. Reverses denial of the Neus’ motion for relief from judgment and their request for attorney fees following Gibson’s full credit bid during a sheriff’s sale of real property located in Michigan. Remands with instructions to award the Neus reasonable attorney fees in litigating this action since August 2007.

Larry R. Busche, II v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1108-CR-418
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class B felony rape.

Raymond H. Mims v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1109-CR-499
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony forgery.

Sharon D. Collins v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A05-1109-CR-490
Criminal. Affirms imposition of consecutive sentences for Collins’ four Class B felony arson convictions, but remands with instructions to resentence her because the arson sentences violate the statutory maximum for felony convictions arising out of an episode of criminal conduct.

Gary W. Ferguson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
73A05-1108-CR-434
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony dealing in a narcotic drug.

Seth T. Lipscomb v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1109-CR-443
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement and Class D felony theft.

In Re the Estate of Nancy Jean McMillen, Donna McMillen v. Thomas Kane (NFP)
71A03-1107-ES-324
Estate, supervised. Affirms denial of Donna McMillen’s petition in which she sought to remove Kane as the personal representative of the estate and as trustee of a trust established by Nancy McMillen’s will, of which Donna McMillen was the named beneficiary.

Michael West v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1108-PC-451
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Russell W. Yerden v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1110-PC-1010
Post conviction. Affirms in part and reverses in part denial of petition for post-conviction relief. Remands for correction of Yerden’s 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