ILNews

COA upholds attorney's felony conviction

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of an attorney's motion to have his prior drunk-driving conviction reduced to a misdemeanor because the attorney was arrested again for drunk driving before completing his probation.

In James R. Recker II v. State of Indiana, No. 49A04-0805-CR-262, James Recker was given probation and 180 hours of community service after pleading guilty to operating a vehicle while intoxicated as a Class D felony in March 2006. As part of the agreement, the trial court could enter the conviction as a misdemeanor after Recker completed his probation, which was set to expire in February 2007.

For his community service, Recker worked pro bono at various legal organizations. When his probation was set to expire, he still hadn't completed all the necessary hours. His probation was extended to give him time to complete them. At a hearing in December 2007, Recker argued he had finished the hours but Legal Services Organization hadn't reported all of his hours yet. Another hearing was set for Jan. 22, 2008.

Before that hearing, Recker was arrested and charged with operating a vehicle while intoxicated. At a new hearing in February 2008, he moved for his original conviction to be reduced because he completed community service prior to December 2007 and therefore wasn't on probation when he was arrested again. The trial court denied his motion.

Examining the applicable statute in this case, Indiana Code Section 35-38-1-1.5, the Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed the denial of Recker's motion. A trial court isn't required to convert a judgment to a Class A misdemeanor if it finds the defendant violated a condition set by the court or if the period of probation expired prior to the defendant successfully completing the conditions, wrote Judge James Kirsch. Recker violated two provisions of the statute: he didn't successfully complete the ordered 180 hours of community service before his probation originally expired in February 2007 and received several extensions in which to do so. As a result, the trial court wasn't required to convert his conviction, wrote Judge Kirsch.

Recker's drunk-driving arrest while on probation also prevented the trial court from reducing his earlier conviction, per I.C. Section 35-38-1-1.5(c).

The Indiana Supreme Court suspended Recker from the practice of law in Indiana March 13, 2009, pending further order from the high court or final resolution of any resulting disciplinary action, due to his being found guilty of operating a vehicle while intoxicated as a Class D felony with a habitual substance offender enhancement.

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The ADA acts as a tax upon all for the benefit of a few. And, most importantly, the many have no individual say in whether they pay the tax. Those with handicaps suffered in military service should get a pass, but those who are handicapped by accident or birth do NOT deserve that pass. The drivel about "equal access" is spurious because the handicapped HAVE equal access, they just can't effectively use it. That is their problem, not society's. The burden to remediate should be that of those who seek the benefit of some social, constructional, or dimensional change, NOT society generally. Everybody wants to socialize the costs and concentrate the benefits of government intrusion so that they benefit and largely avoid the costs. This simply maintains the constant push to the slop trough, and explains, in part, why the nation is 20 trillion dollars in the hole.

  2. Hey 2 psychs is never enough, since it is statistically unlikely that three will ever agree on anything! New study admits this pseudo science is about as scientifically valid as astrology ... done by via fortune cookie ....John Ioannidis, professor of health research and policy at Stanford University, said the study was impressive and that its results had been eagerly awaited by the scientific community. “Sadly, the picture it paints - a 64% failure rate even among papers published in the best journals in the field - is not very nice about the current status of psychological science in general, and for fields like social psychology it is just devastating,” he said. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/study-delivers-bleak-verdict-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results

  3. Indianapolis Bar Association President John Trimble and I are on the same page, but it is a very large page with plenty of room for others to join us. As my final Res Gestae article will express in more detail in a few days, the Great Recession hastened a fundamental and permanent sea change for the global legal service profession. Every state bar is facing the same existential questions that thrust the medical profession into national healthcare reform debates. The bench, bar, and law schools must comprehensively reconsider how we define the practice of law and what it means to access justice. If the three principals of the legal service profession do not recast the vision of their roles and responsibilities soon, the marketplace will dictate those roles and responsibilities without regard for the public interests that the legal profession professes to serve.

  4. I have met some highly placed bureaucrats who vehemently disagree, Mr. Smith. This is not your father's time in America. Some ideas are just too politically incorrect too allow spoken, says those who watch over us for the good of their concept of order.

  5. Lets talk about this without forgetting that Lawyers, too, have FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION

ADVERTISEMENT