ILNews

Opinions Oct. 28, 2010

October 28, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Robert D. Davis v. State of Indiana
32A01-1003-CR-144
Criminal. Affirms denial of Davis’ motion for leave to amend his motion to correct erroneous sentence. The information before the appellate court doesn’t allow it to decide whether he was erroneously sentenced.  

Quincy and Shannon Branham v. Rodney Varble and Norman Chastain
62A01-1004-SC-192
Small claims. Affirms order the Branhams pay $50 a month toward a small-claims judgment. The burden is upon the debtor to assert an exemption. Reverses the part of the court’s order that Quincy seek alternative employment by submitting five applications a week. There’s no court authority that supports this order. Judge Crone dissents in part.

Quincy and Shannon Branham v. Rodney and Carol Varble
62A04-1004-SC-256
Small claims. Affirms order the Branhams pay $50 a month toward a small claims judgment. Based on the evidence before the court, it concluded that exemptions aside, they had sufficient funds to pay the judgment. Reverses the part of the court’s order that Quincy seek alternative employment by submitting five applications a week. There’s no court authority that supports this order. Judge Crone dissents in part.

Kelvin Heyen v. State of Indiana
84A04-1002-CR-134
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine and being a habitual offender. Heyen’s claim the evidence was stale fails; he didn’t show that the confidential informant’s identity was unknown to him, the evidence is sufficient to show he dealt methamphetamine and that he is an habitual offender, and his trial counsel didn’t render ineffective assistance.

Marvin G. Jerro v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1001-CR-38
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class A felony dealing in cocaine, one count of Class C felony possession of cocaine, and finding Jerro is a habitual offender.

Donald A. Pierce v. State of Indiana (NFP)
13A04-0908-CR-480
Criminal. Affirms convictions of three counts of Class A felony child molesting and one count of Class C felony child molesting. Remands with instructions to attach Pierce’s fixed 10-year term for being a repeat sexual offender to one of his Class A felony sentences for an aggregate sentence of 134 years.

Dion Alexander Walker v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1005-PC-250
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Richard D. Stewart v. State of Indiana (NFP)

42A05-0912-CR-705
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine, Class D felony possession of methamphetamine, and Class D felony maintaining a common nuisance.

Joseph Hoskins v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1004-CR-524
Criminal. Affirms conviction of possession of marijuana as a Class A misdemeanor.

Micah Potter v. State of Indiana (NFP)
89A05-1006-CR-391
Criminal. Affirms execution of Potter’s previously suspended sentence upon the revocation of her probation.

Paternity of C.W.R.; C.W. v. F.R. (NFP)
31A01-1002-JP-47
Juvenile. Affirms order denying mother C.W.’s petition to modify custody of C.W.R.

Samuel Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1003-CR-171
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class A felony rape, Class A felony criminal deviate conduct, Class B felony robbery, and Class C felony intimidation.

Donald K. Wilburn v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1001-CR-24
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony rape and Class B felony criminal deviate conduct.

Anthony R. Helton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1002-CR-183
Criminal. Affirms convictions of eight counts of Class D felony theft.

Martin A. Stanley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1003-CR-209
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony arson.

William Greenwood v. State of Indiana (NFP)
43A03-1005-CR-322
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class C felonies child molesting and child exploitation and remands for correction of clerical errors.

Antoine R. Bird v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1003-CR-170
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony robbery and felony murder.

Clarence Davis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A04-1003-CR-273
Criminal. Affirms six-year sentence imposed following probation violation.

Randy A. Cummings v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A04-1001-CR-32
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony attempted murder.

Walter Archer, III v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1001-CR-32
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felony carrying a handgun without a license.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at 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