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. @ President Snow, like they really read these comments or have the GUTS to show what is the right thing to do. They are just worrying about planning the next retirement party, the others JUST DO NOT CARE about what is right. Its the Good Ol'Boys - they do not care about the rights of the mother or child, they just care about their next vote, which, from what I gather, the mother left the state of Indiana because of the domestic violence that was going on through out the marriage, the father had three restraining orders on him from three different women, but yet, the COA judges sent a strong message, go ahead men put your women in place, do what you have to do, you have our backs... I just wish the REAL truth could be told about this situation... Please pray for this child and mother that God will some how make things right and send a miracle from above.

  2. I hear you.... Us Christians are the minority. The LGBTs groups have more rights than the Christians..... How come when we express our faith openly in public we are prosecuted? This justice system do not want to seem "bias" but yet forgets who have voted them into office.

  3. Perhaps the lady chief justice, or lady appellate court chief judge, or one of the many female federal court judges in Ind could lead this discussion of gender disparity? THINK WITH ME .... any real examples of race or gender bias reported on this ezine? But think about ADA cases ... hmmmm ... could it be that the ISC actually needs to tighten its ADA function instead? Let's ask me or Attorney Straw. And how about religion? Remember it, it used to be right up there with race, and actually more protected than gender. Used to be. Patrick J Buchanan observes: " After World War II, our judicial dictatorship began a purge of public manifestations of the “Christian nation” Harry Truman said we were. In 2009, Barack Obama retorted, “We do not consider ourselves to be a Christian nation.” Secularism had been enthroned as our established religion, with only the most feeble of protests." http://www.wnd.com/2017/02/is-secession-a-solution-to-cultural-war/#q3yVdhxDVMMxiCmy.99 I could link to any of my supreme court filings here, but have done that more than enough. My case is an exclamation mark on what PJB writes. BUT not in ISC, where the progressives obsess on race and gender .... despite a lack of predicate acts in the past decade. Interested in reading more on this subject? Search for "Florida" on this ezine.

  4. Great questions to six jurists. The legislature should open a probe to investigate possible government corruption. Cj rush has shown courage as has justice Steven David. Who stands with them?

  5. The is an unsigned editorial masquerading as a news story. Almost everyone quoted was biased in favor of letting all illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. (Ignoring that Obama deported 3.5 million in 8 years). For some reason Obama enforcing part of the immigration laws was O.K. but Trump enforcing additional parts is terrible. I have listed to press conferences and explanations of the Homeland Security memos and I gather from them that less than 1 million will be targeted for deportation, the "dreamers" will be left alone and illegals arriving in the last two years -- especially those arriving very recently -- will be subject to deportation but after the criminals. This will not substantially affect the GDP negatively, especially as it will take place over a number of years. I personally think this is a rational approach to the illegal immigration problem. It may cause Congress to finally pass new immigration laws rationalizing the whole immigration situation.

ADVERTISEMENT