A panel of Indiana Court of Appeals judges heads north Friday to hear arguments to determine whether the trial court abused
its discretion in ordering the defendant to serve the remainder of his sentence in prison after he violated home detention
rules.
In Pablo Madrigal v. State of Indiana, No. 71A05-0903-CR-131, Pablo Madrigal was on home detention after pleading
guilty to one count of possession of more than three grams of cocaine with intent to deliver as a Class A felony. He was sentenced
to 20 years, with 15 suspended, five years served on home detention followed by two years of probation.
A St. Joseph County Community Corrections home detention officer noticed shell casings near the front door of Madrigal's
home. A search by police yielded a 9mm handgun. The trial court ordered him to serve the remainder of his 20-year sentence
with the Department of Correction.
Madrigal argues the trial court should have allowed him to continue to serve his sentence on home detention but change the
terms of his home detention based on statute.
Arguments begin at 10 a.m. CDT in the auditorium at Valparaiso High School, 2727 N. Campbell St. Judges Paul Mathias, Margret
Robb, and Nancy Vaidik are scheduled to hear the arguments.














vagueness cannot challenged, so let's write all laws vaguely and throw the constitution out the window.Even if the court is operating under a particular law, if they don't it they will change it to their liking. What a joke!!!
Two convictions becomes one conviction with exactly the same sentence, only it is not clear wheter or not that sentence will be 18 months, 120 months or 138 months. Actually if the guns were in a home, whether or not they were his, he is protected under the 2nd amendment. Jurors need to learn the law and the constitution before judging others. The cour5ts need to do this as well.
With all due respect, Rick, I think you probably would be making a mistake by going to law school. The job market for attorneys is so saturated, you may well find yourself unemployed and with a lot of debt. You mention law would be a good supplement to your skills. True. But employers unfortunately don't value that. You will find that a law degree may well pigeonhole you into an attorney slot and limit career options. If you have a good job now I would hold onto that. As an attorney, you may well end up making less with the aforementioned debt.
Jack, I was only responding to bill's comment of tying everybody in government together. I agree with you though, it takes one bad apple to ruin the bunch.. As in any profession. What's truly unfair is when somebody violates someone's trust and takes complete advantage of someone
John’s comment is unfair. The majority of attorneys can be trusted. Unfortunately, all it takes is one greedy, unscrupulous, immoral attorney to jade the public.