ILNews

Opinions Sept. 13, 2013

September 13, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Jerry A. Smith v. State of Indiana
15A05-1208-CR-411
Criminal. Affirms Dearborn Superior Court’s denial of Smith’s motion to dismiss three charges and reverses the court’s denial of the motion to dismiss 15 state charges. Rules most of the charges brought against Smith for an alleged Ponzi scheme violated double jeopardy because they were for the same conduct included in his guilty plea to a federal indictment. However, the charges related to Smith’s failing to register with the Indiana Secretary of State as a broker-dealer can stand since they were not related to the federal charges. Judge Nancy Vaidik dissents, arguing the remaining charges also violate double jeopardy because both the federal and state charges rely, partially, on Smith’s failure to register.

Jerry A. Smith v. State of Indiana
24A01-1210-CR-469
Criminal. Affirms Franklin Circuit Court’s order dismissing 24 state charges and denying Smith’s motion to dismiss five other charges. Reserves denial of motion to dismiss remaining state court charges and remands for further proceedings. Finds most of the charges brought against Smith for an alleged Ponzi scheme were for the same conduct included in his guilty plea to a federal indictment and therefore violate double-jeopardy prohibitions. However, the charges related to Smith’s failing to register with the Indiana secretary of state as a broker-dealer can stand because they were not related to the federal charges. Judge Nancy Vaidik dissents, arguing the remaining charges also violate double jeopardy since both the federal and state charges rely, partially, on Smith’s failure to register.

Von Tobel Corporation, Individually, and d/b/a Von Tobel Lumber & Hardware; and Von Tobel Lumber & Home Center, Inc. v. Chi-Tec Construction & Remodeling, Inc.; John F. Ziola, Jr.; Et Al.
46A03-1301-MI-18
Miscellaneous/mechanic’s lien. Reverses grant of summary judgment in favor of the Margret Lynn West trust, one of the defendant parties, and orders summary judgment entered for Von Tobel. The panel reversed a trial court ruling that the lien was invalid because a pre-lien notice named “Von Tobel Lumber & Home Center Inc.” and the lien notice named “Von Tobel Corporation” as claimants. The difference was minimal, not misleading and didn’t prejudice the trust or other parties, the panel held.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of Jo. B. & Ju. B.(Minor Children) and T. B.(Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
49A05-1303-JT-92
Juvenile. Affirms termination of T.B.’s parental rights to her children, Ju.B. and Jo.B.

Lamar Miller v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1302-CR-46
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy.

Charles Grieco v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1301-CR-32
Criminal. Affirms conviction for operating a vehicle while intoxicated, as a Class C misdemeanor.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court issued no opinions by IL deadline. The 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