ILNews

1st pro bono appeals program case gets transfer

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court granted has granted transfer to two cases, including the first case from the Indiana State Bar Association's pro bono appellate program.

The case In the Matter of the Adoption of the Unborn Child of B.W., Wilfrido Garcia v. David Heine Bos and Janae Herbst Bos, No. 03A04-0802-CV-107, is the first case from the state bar's pro bono appellate program, which began in January 2007, to reach the Indiana Supreme Court, said Bose McKinney & Evans attorney Bryan Babb, who is representing Wilfrido Garcia in the appeal.

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decree of adoption of Garcia's child, T.B. The appellate court found Garcia failed to follow the statutory requirements to contest the child's adoption, so his consent to the adoption is irrevocably implied.

Garcia argued Indiana Code Sections 31-19-4-5 and -9-12 are in conflict because -9-12 requires the putative father to file a motion to contest the adoption or to initiate a paternity action within 30 days of being served with the petition for adoption and notice of named father. The Court of Appeals ruled the statutes can be "harmonized and rationalized to give effect to both statutes, given the recognition of the named father's obligation" to consult Indiana's adoption statutes as is stated in the notice of pending adoption proceedings.

The high court also granted transfer to Byron Breaston v. State of Indiana, No. 20A04-0802-PC-113, in which the Court of Appeals reversed the post-conviction court's ruling to vacate Breaston's habitual offender enhancement and reinstated the enhancement because the state showed he had another felony conviction that could support the habitual offender enhancement. The appellate court affirmed the post-conviction court's rulings on all other grounds, including that the state didn't waive all arguments because it failed to respond to his petition for post-conviction relief, the denial of Breaston's motion to consolidate his post-conviction case with a civil suit against several public defenders, and his conviction of escape stands because he wasn't on probation at the time he was arrested for failing to return to detention while on work release.

The cases were granted transfer Oct. 15 but details weren't released until late afternoon Oct. 16.

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT