ILNews

Opinions Nov. 7, 2013

November 7, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Debra Minott, Faith Laird, Patti Bailey v. Lee Alan Bryant Health Care Facilities, Inc.; Parkview Residential Care Center, L.L.C.; Parke County Residential Care Center, L.L.C., et al.
49A05-1305-PL-213
Civil plenary. Reverses denial of state’s request for restitution for damages paid. The Nov. 8 order was not a final judgment because it did not address the issue of restitution. Holds the law firms and creditor banks in this case are judgment creditors. Remands for further proceedings.

Michael P. Stafford v. State of Indiana (NFP)
17A04-1304-CR-178
Criminal. Affirms convictions and 120-year sentence for Class A felony criminal deviate conduct, Class A felony kidnapping, Class B felony burglary, Class B felony criminal confinement, and Class B felony robbery while armed with a deadly weapon.

Michael Schepers v. State of Indiana (NFP)
19A01-1303-CR-100
Criminal. Affirms denial of Schepers’ motion to suppress and remands for retrial.

Michael Kelley v. State of Indana (NFP)
45A04-1303-PC-161
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

David Fields v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A01-1301-PC-3
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Anthony Tsikouris, Diann Tsikouris, and the 601 Building, Inc., v. LaPorte Savings Bank (NFP)
46A05-1212-MF-659
Mortgage foreclosure. Affirms summary judgment in favor of bank on its foreclosure action. However, the amount of the damages was erroneous, and the trial court therefore abused its discretion when it denied the motion to correct error. Additionally, the motion to correct error should have been granted as to the award of attorney fees. Remands with instructions to conduct a hearing on damages and attorney fees.

State of Indiana v. Jerramy Bushong (NFP)
67A04-1304-CR-196
Criminal. Affirms denial of the state’s motion to correct error, which challenged the grant of a motion to suppress evidence.

Jeffrey V. McCloud v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1304-CR-322
Criminal. Double jeopardy principles embodied in the continuing crime doctrine bar entry of two judgments of conviction against McCloud for resisting law enforcement. The trial court erred when it imposed a sentence in excess of statutory authority against McCloud for possession of paraphernalia, as a Class A misdemeanor. McCloud’s 47-year sentence was not inappropriate under Appellate Rule 7(B). Remands with instructions to vacate his conviction for resisting law enforcement as a Class A misdemeanor and to enter a sentence within the authorized statutory range on McCloud’s conviction for possession of paraphernalia as a Class A misdemeanor.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no decisions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted 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