ILNews

Court hears appeal over state's objections

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A man who appealed his burglary conviction over the state’s objection did not fully understand the terms of his plea agreement, the Indiana Court of Appeals held Friday.

Danny Holloway was charged with six felonies and agreed to plead guilty to Class B felony burglary and to waive his right to appeal, with the state agreeing to drop the other charges. But although Holloway signed the agreement, at his combined guilty plea and sentencing hearing, the judge told Holloway at least twice that he would be able to appeal, and the state did not object.

The appeals court cited Bonilla v. State, 907 N.E.2d 586 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), in its decision to hear Holloway’s appeal: “This advisement occurred . . . before Bonilla received the benefit of his bargain. . . . In light of the contradictory and confusing information Bonilla received at his guilty plea hearing . . . we conclude that he did not waive the right to appeal his sentence.” The court held that Holloway, similarly, did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to appeal.

In July of 2010, Holloway broke into the home of a woman who knew him. She was on a mattress on the floor, sleeping with her three children and woke up when Holloway tried to remove her jeans. She saw Holloway kneeling at her side, and he then fled.

In Danny Holloway v. State of Indiana, No. 49A05-1011-CR-703, Holloway appealed his sentence as inappropriate. As part of his plea agreement, Holloway’s initial executed sentence would be capped at 10 years. The trial court sentenced him to 16 years with 10 years executed, six years suspended, and five years of probation. The appeals court held that because his burglary was not demonstrably less egregious than a “typical” burglary – and because of his criminal background – the sentence was appropriate.

Holloway’s record includes three juvenile offenses, fifteen adult convictions, and three probation revocations.
 

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. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  2. 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.

  3. 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?

  4. 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

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT