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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT