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. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT