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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT