ILNews

Panel dismisses contempt appeal as moot

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A man held in contempt of court after a judge determined he threatened witnesses in his brother’s murder case had his appeal dismissed Tuesday.

A panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals dismissed Dayron Bell’s appeal as moot because he had served his sentence. Only one of the four appellate issues he raised as justifying review was considered: whether the public interest exception justified appeal.

In Dayron Bell v. State of Indiana, 82A01-1306-CR-271, Bell appealed a finding that he was in direct contempt of court, arguing instead that he should have been held in indirect contempt for comments he made outside the courtroom to witnesses in the murder trial of his brother, Christopher.

Dayron Bell was ordered jailed for the duration of the trial, after which he was formally sentenced to serve 90 days in the Vanderburgh County Jail with no good time credit. His sentence was completed in August.

On appeal, he argued the court should use the public interest exception because: he claimed he was denied due process; that a similar situation was likely to arise again, so the court should weigh whether the incident was direct or indirect contempt; and that the court should review whether the denial of credit for time served was proper.

“Nothing in the facts of Bell’s case persuades this court that the issues raised by Bell are of ‘great public importance,’” Judge Edward Najam wrote for the panel, noting his appeal conflates the public-interest exception with error review. "That is not the purpose of this limited exception, and we will not deviate from our general rule of not deciding moot cases based on these facts. Accordingly, we decline Bell’s invitation to apply the public interest exception to this appeal, and we dismiss Bell’s appeal as moot.”  

 


 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

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. 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!

  2. 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.

  3. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

  4. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  5. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

ADVERTISEMENT