ILNews

Opinions Oct. 19, 2012

October 19, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline Friday.

U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana opinions by IL deadline Friday.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Rodney Killebrew II v. State of Indiana

34A02-1204-CR-303
Criminal. Reserves a conviction of possession of marijuana after concluding the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted evidence obtained at an illegal traffic stop. The court found the police officer had no grounds to stop the driver because the continuous use of a turn signal is not a traffic violation and the officer’s actions did not fall within his community caretaking function.  

Alton Neville v. State of Indiana
49A05-1201-CR-9
Criminal. Affirms conviction of murder and carrying a handgun without a license, holding that while there was prosecutorial error that included improperly presenting facts not in evidence and improperly inflaming the passions and prejudices of the jury, the improper comments did not rise to the level of fundamental error.

In Re the Marriage of Yan Wolfman v. Estelle Wolfman (NFP)
45A03-1201-DR-17
Domestic relations/divorce. Remands to the trial court to clarify division of assets.

Jeffery Sanders v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1203-CR-150
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft and adjuctication as a habitual offender.
 
Delareco Pacely v. State of Indiana (NFP)
44A03-1110-CR-488
Criminal. Affirms 18-year sentence for three convictions of Class C felony child molesting.

Albert Harris v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1205-PC-386
Post conviction. Affirms trial court denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Brandon Boles v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1203-CR-226
Criminal. Reverses 10-day sentence for failure to complete community service as a requirement of a sentence for a conviction of public intoxication.

Donzahue Pearson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1202-CR-119
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to dismiss Class D felony charge of sex offender who failed to possess valid identification.  

Dean Eric Blanck v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1204-CR-281
Criminal. Affirms 730-day sentence after a guilty plea to charges of Class D felony resisting law enforcement and Class C misdemeanor operating while intoxicated.

 

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. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. 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.

  3. 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!!!

  4. 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!

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT