ILNews

High court grants 4 transfers

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Supreme Court granted four transfers last week, though one was remanded to the state's Court of Appeals while another came with a significant ruling about community rental restrictions.

In taking the cases, justices now have a chance to weigh in on the denial of post-conviction relief regarding a habitual offender enhancement and driving an ATV while drunk on private property.

On May 13, the high court granted transfer in State of Indiana v. Adam L. Manuwal, No. 50A05-0703-CR-182, which asks whether the trial court correctly ruled that a driver of an ATV shouldn't be prosecuted for driving under the influence on his or her own property, pursuant to the Indiana Codes Sections 9-30-5-1 and -2.

In November, the Court of Appeals affirmed Manuwal's motion to dismiss because he was improperly charged under the general OWI statutes, ruling that he should have been charged for violating Section 14-16-1-23 - the statute governing a defendant's operation of an off-road vehicle while under the influence.

Justices also will consider Anthony A. Hopkins v. State of Indiana, No. 49A05-0705-PC-279. Hopkins appealed his denial for post-conviction relief, arguing the trial court failed to advise him that his guilty plea included an element of being a habitual offender and not just stipulated to the underlying felonies. Not being advised of those rights - dubbed Boykin rights - caused his guilty plea to be involuntary and unintelligent, so his plea should be vacated, Hopkins contended. The Court of Appeals reversed the post-conviction court and remanded for further proceedings, and now that decision has been vacated.

The Supreme Court also granted transfer in West Villas II of Willowridge Homeowners Association v. Edna McGlothin, No. 34S02-0805-CV-266. Click here to read IL's coverage of the case.

Another transfer in Margaret R. and Darrell G. Smith v. JP Morgan and Litton Loan, No. 89A01-0702-CV-00094, resulted in the justices' remanding that case to the Court of Appeals, since the lower court had denied the Smiths' pro se motion for emergency stay from the sale of their home because of late filings and not properly following the appellate rules. Upon transfer, the Supreme Court reinstated the appeal.
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. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  4. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

  5. No, Ron Drake is not running against incumbent Larry Bucshon. That’s totally wrong; and destructively misleading to say anything like that. All political candidates, including me in the 8th district, are facing voters, not incumbents. You should not firewall away any of voters’ options. We need them all now more than ever. Right? Y’all have for decades given the Ds and Rs free 24/7/365 coverage of taxpayer-supported promotion at the expense of all alternatives. That’s plenty of head-start, money-in-the-pocket advantage for parties and people that don’t need any more free immunities, powers, privileges and money denied all others. Now it’s time to play fair and let voters know that there are, in fact, options. Much, much better, and not-corrupt options. Liberty or Bust! Andy Horning Libertarian for IN08 USA House of Representatives Freedom, Indiana

ADVERTISEMENT