ILNews

COA orders judge grant motion for bail bond reduction

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Even though the severity of the 13 charges against a Knox County man for his role in several home invasions supports setting his bond at $25,000 cash only, the Indiana Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court should have allowed him to post a percentage of that to bond out.

Tommi Emerson Winn was arrested and charged with 13 counts of burglary. He and two other men broke into homes, stole jewelry and pawned some of it. They also converted stolen change into bills at a Wal-Mart. The trial court set his bond at $25,000 cash and denied Winn’s motion to reduce so he could post 10 percent of that to secure his release from jail.

Winn argued – and others testified in support – that he was not a flight risk, lived in Knox County most of his life, and had not failed to appear for a court appearance.

When setting the amount of bond under Indiana Code 35-33-8-4(b), subsection 7, the nature and gravity of the offense and potential penalty faced, is enough to warrant a refusal to reduce the amount of bail, the Court of Appeals pointed out. However, the other nine subsections, including family ties and relationships and source of funds or property to be used to post bail, weigh in Winn’s favor.

The record shows that Winn could not post the entire $25,000 in cash, so by denying his motion, the trial judge condemned him to jail pending trial without articulating why, Senior Judge Carr Darden wrote in Tommi Emerson Winn v. State of Indiana, 42A04-1201-CR-49. The judge used the words “cash only” but didn’t give his reasoning for the limitation.

Darden and Judge Ezra Friedlander ordered the trial judge to grant Winn’s motion. Judge Elaine Brown concurred in result, noting that the judge should also consider the use of real estate or posting a real estate bond, as allowed under I.C. 35-33-8-3.2.

 

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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT