ILNews

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.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  2. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  3. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  4. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  5. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

ADVERTISEMENT