ILNews

Attorney criticized for poor brief

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Court of Appeals dismissed a defendant's appeal because of the numerous errors committed by her attorney in the brief.

In Ashley N. Galvan v. State of Indiana, No. 35A02-0706-CR-495, Judge Ezra Friedlander spent the majority of the opinion blasting Galvan's attorney, John Clifton of Fort Wayne, for failing to follow appellate rules in filing the brief.

Galvan, who took a plea agreement, was appealing her sentence of one and a half years for possession of cocaine with all but 90 days suspended to probation, and a concurrent sentence of one year with all but six days suspended for an OWI offense.

Because of numerous violations, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal. Judge Friedlander wrote in a footnote that even if Clifton had followed all the appellate rules, Galvan would have lost her appeal because she waived her right to do that in her plea agreement.

"Due to flagrant violations of the appellate rules, we dismiss Galvan's appeal," Judge Friedlander wrote. "We have warned Galvan's attorney, John G. Clifton, on at least three occasions regarding his inadequate appellate advocacy."

The court has warned Clifton in the past about his work, and according to a footnote in the opinion, he has continued to file briefs and appendices that violate the appellate rules. The most recent brief was filed Oct. 5, 2007.

Judge Friedlander listed the rules Clifton didn't follow in filing Galvan's appeal - Indiana Appellate Rules 46(A)(5), 46(A)(6), 46(A)(7), 46(A)(10), 46(A)(8)(a), and 50(c).

The appellate brief lacked an adequate statement of facts, statement of case, and summary of the argument section. Clifton had cut and pasted his previous statement of issue into the summary of the argument section, which simply read: "I. Inappropriateness of sentence."

"Even a non-lawyer would recognize this 'summary' as unacceptable," Judge Friedlander wrote.

Clifton's brief lacked an appropriate table of contents and his argument in support of Galvan's appeal was inadequate and "not supported by cogent reasoning."

Finally, Judge Friedlander directed Clifton to return any fee he may have received from Galvan to represent her and cautioned the attorney that any more violations may result in a referral to the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission for investigation.
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. Living in South Bend, I travel to Michigan a lot. Virtually every gas station sells cold beer there. Many sell the hard stuff too. Doesn't seem to be a big deal there.

  2. Mr. Ricker, how foolish of you to think that by complying with the law you would be ok. Don't you know that Indiana is a state that welcomes monopolies, and that Indiana's legislature is the one entity in this state that believes monopolistic practices (such as those engaged in by Indiana Association of Beverage Retailers) make Indiana a "business-friendly" state? How can you not see this????

  3. Actually, and most strikingly, the ruling failed to address the central issue to the whole case: Namely, Black Knight/LPS, who was NEVER a party to the State court litigation, and who is under a 2013 consent judgment in Indiana (where it has stipulated to the forgery of loan documents, the ones specifically at issue in my case)never disclosed itself in State court or remediated the forged loan documents as was REQUIRED of them by the CJ. In essence, what the court is willfully ignoring, is that it is setting a precedent that the supplier of a defective product, one whom is under a consent judgment stipulating to such, and under obligation to remediate said defective product, can: 1.) Ignore the CJ 2.) Allow counsel to commit fraud on the state court 3.) Then try to hide behind Rooker Feldman doctrine as a bar to being held culpable in federal court. The problem here is the court is in direct conflict with its own ruling(s) in Johnson v. Pushpin Holdings & Iqbal- 780 F.3d 728, at 730 “What Johnson adds - what the defendants in this suit have failed to appreciate—is that federal courts retain jurisdiction to award damages for fraud that imposes extrajudicial injury. The Supreme Court drew that very line in Exxon Mobil ... Iqbal alleges that the defendants conducted a racketeering enterprise that predates the state court’s judgments ...but Exxon Mobil shows that the Rooker Feldman doctrine asks what injury the plaintiff asks the federal court to redress, not whether the injury is “intertwined” with something else …Because Iqbal seeks damages for activity that (he alleges) predates the state litigation and caused injury independently of it, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not block this suit. It must be reinstated.” So, as I already noted to others, I now have the chance to bring my case to SCOTUS; the ruling by Wood & Posner is flawed on numerous levels,BUT most troubling is the fact that the authors KNOW it's a flawed ruling and choose to ignore the flaws for one simple reason: The courts have decided to agree with former AG Eric Holder that national banks "Are too big to fail" and must win at any cost-even that of due process, case precedent, & the truth....Let's see if SCOTUS wants a bite at the apple.

  4. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  5. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

ADVERTISEMENT