COA to hear arguments in Valparaiso

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  2. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  3. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  4. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.

  5. Call Young and Young aAttorneys at Law theres ones handling a class action lawsuit