ILNews

Opinions Aug. 17, 2010

August 17, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Cullen Davis Walker v. State of Indiana
71A03-1003-CR-115
Criminal. Affirms Walker’s convictions of burglary, robbery, criminal confinement – all as Class B felonies, and possession of cocaine as a Class C felony. Also affirms his sentence of 56 years. Walker argued his burglary and criminal confinement convictions should be vacated pursuant to the continuing crime doctrine because his offenses were all part of the same continuing crime since they occurred in a short period of time and facilitated his sole purpose of taking things from people at one house. The court ruled each offense was a distinct chargeable crime. Remands with instructions to correct clerical errors in the amended judgment and chronological case summary.

Paternity of M.B., N.B. v. J.W. (NFP)
45A03-0911-PL-536
Civil. Affirms in part, reverses in part, and remands. Rules the trial court did not abuse its discretion by sua sponte modifying the prior child-support order to reflect the mother was not providing overnight parenting time; remands for the court to adjust its order modifying the amount of support owed by mother so that it is prospective in nature only. Also rules the trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to enforce parenting time because it used its discretionary authority to threaten M.B. and his father with sanctions if M.B. failed to participate in parenting time. It also didn’t abuse its discretion by designating a mid-point for the mother and M.B. to meet for parenting time and by ordering mother to pay dental bills incurred because of her authorization of dental work not covered by M.B.’s insurance.

Mark Stearns v. Amy Taylor-Stearns (NFP)
45A03-0908-CV-380
Civil. Affirms order to strike husband’s motions he filed after court-ordered deadline, and dissolution court did not abuse its discretion finding in husband in contempt and imposing sanction for willful breach of settlement agreement.

In re the Guardianship of C.J.; T.J. v. K.M. (NFP)
27A02-1002-GU-150
Guardianship. Affirms grant of mother K.M.’s petition to terminate stepmother’s guardianship of son, C.J., after the father’s death.

Terry D. McClinton, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-0912-CR-712
Criminal. Affirms aggregate sentence of 28 years for two counts of Class B felony robbery and one count of Class B felony dealing in cocaine.

Breondon D. Pinkson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A05-1002-CR-146
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation, noting Pinkson was properly notified.

Golden Cummings v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-0912-CR-1252
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony battery.

Isidro Lopez-Ruiz v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A04-0912-CR-707
Criminal. Affirms 48-year sentence for convictions of two counts of Class A felony dealing in cocaine.

Earl Lee Russelburg v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1002-CR-113
Criminal. Affirms denial of petition for leave to file a belated notice of appeal.

Kenneth Ramey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1001-CR-5
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony dealing in cocaine.

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