ILNews

Supreme Court denies transfer to four

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court denied transfer in four cases June 3. As of today’s Indiana Lawyer daily deadline, the court had not yet posted transfers since those from the week ending June 4.

The court denied transfer to the following cases:

James Henley v. State of Indiana, No. 49A02-0908-CR-711, a not-for-publication opinion that affirmed Henley’s conviction of intimidation and sentence, which was enhanced by a habitual offender finding.

David Burks-Bey v. State of Indiana, No. 49A02-0903-PC-231, a not-for-publication opinion that affirmed a denial of motion to correct an erroneous sentence.

Gideon Samid v. Virginia Spencer, No. 06A01-0901-CV-45, a not-for-publication opinion that affirmed the trial court’s denial of Samid’s motion to correct error and remanded for determination of Spencer’s appellate attorneys’ fees in a case involving a protective order.

Robert L. Scott v. State of Indiana, No. 79A05-0812-CR-746, a for-publication case that considered Scott’s convictions of two counts of Class B felony possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon; one count of Class C felony battery with a deadly weapon; one count of Class D felony of pointing a firearm; and one count of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. In this case, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s handling of the case regarding its discretion in admitting evidence obtained from Scott’s residence and in admitting certain evidence in its determination that Scott was a serious violent felon. But the Court of Appeals reversed that decision regarding the trial court’s refusal to give a tendered instruction as to whether a gun in question was loaded.
 

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