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.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.