The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer Oct. 22 to a case involving a conviction of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated.
In Clint R. Beldon v. State of Indiana, No. 43S05-0910-CR-496, the Indiana Court of Appeals had to decide whether
the trial court abused its discretion by admitting a doctor's video-taped deposition at trial in lieu of her in-person
testimony and if the state properly requested blood and urine test results pursuant to Indiana Code Section 9-30-6-6. The
appellate court also ruled on whether the court erred in sentencing Clint Beldon by using the same prior conviction to elevate
his Class A misdemeanor charge to a Class D felony, to support a habitual substance offender finding, and as an aggravating
factor to support the imposition of a maximum sentence.
The Court of Appeals unanimously found the trial court erred by admitting the videotape, but the testimony was merely cumulative
of other properly admitted evidence, so the error was harmless. The judges ruled Beldon waived his argument on the blood and
urine test results because he failed to raise any argument at trial concerning the state's failure to provide evidence
of requests for those tests.
The appellate court also found the trial court erred by elevating Beldon's charge of operating a vehicle while intoxicated
to a Class D felony based on a prior conviction and enhancing his sentence in part upon a habitual sentence offender finding
that relied upon the same prior conviction. The case was remanded so the trial court could remedy the sentencing defect.














The court of appeals not only tries to rewrite or interpret the law to suit their fancy, now they choose play stupid as well. Every consideration must be given to pro se litigants, who are not held to the same standards as attorneys, as stated by,SCOTUS. I assume they didn't have a lawyer, since one wasn't mentioned and I strongly suggest thatb the rest of the, origional petitioners get back in there and fight for their rights.
the irony of situations like this is that the clients whom conour cheated are the ones who should be pulling hardest for him to remain free and keep his law license, so they have some hopes of him paying back. really bury the guy deep and then there will be little hope of restitution
Qualified immunity, means that if you wear a badge, you are exempt from law and free to do anything you please! The courts will back badge toting individuals, because they think they are above the law as well. They think, they have judicial immunity, they do not.
Deeply, deeply concerned? I'll bet if it was the judge's money that had been swindled we'd see deep concern with actual consequences. First a Ponzi scheme, then a shell game with the assets…c'mon, hasn't Conour abused the judicial system and his clients long enough? I say enough already.
Wow, just wow.