ILNews

Court examines 'judge' definition

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Appeals Court today upheld the convictions and sentence of man who sent threatening letters to the Marion County Prosecutors Office, a judge, and commissioner after being ordered to have no contact.

To be clear in its decision, the appellate court delved into the definition of "judge" and determined the term does include a county commissioner who handles legal matters for the court.

In Allen Montgomery v. State of Indiana, No. 49A04-0703-CR-188, Montgomery appealed his two Class D felony convictions for intimidation and 11 Class A misdemeanor convictions for invasion of privacy. Montgomery was convicted of impersonating a public servant and was placed on probation. As a part of the probation, he was ordered to not have any contact with the Marion County Prosecutor's Office unless it was to report a crime.

A week after he was placed on probation, Montgomery went before Master Commissioner Nancy Broyles regarding an alleged probation violation on a separate incident. Marion Superior Judge Grant Hawkins appointed Commissioner Broyles and assigned her duties, including hearing jury trials.

Commissioner Broyles revoked Montgomery's probation and ordered him to serve four years in the Indiana Department of Correction. From there, Montgomery sent letters to the prosecutor's office, none of which reported crimes. He also sent a letter to Commissioner Broyles saying he found her home address online and he hated to see something happen to her. Montgomery sent a letter to Judge Hawkins, telling him protecting Commissioner Broyles would be "an exercise in futility."

Montgomery was convicted of intimidation and invasion of privacy; he was also deemed a habitual offender. His intimidation charges were amended to Class D felonies because of his threats to a judge. He was sentenced to an aggregate term of 7 1/2 years, which included an enhancement of 4 1/2 years for being a habitual offender.

On appeal, Montgomery argued his Class D conviction for threatening a judge was in error because Commissioner Broyles is not a judge as is defined by the code that defines intimidation.

But the court disagreed, with Judge Nancy Vaidik writing that Commissioner Broyles was appointed by a Superior Court judge to hear and decide legal matters in the court - how a judge is defined in Black's Law Dictionary. Therefore, sufficient evidence exists to support the Class D felony convictions, she wrote.

Montgomery believed his convictions for invasion of privacy also violated his state and federal constitutional rights, but Montgomery never raised on appeal the issue that the no-contact order with the prosecutor's office put a restraint on his "politically expressive speech." The appellate court did not address this issue because Montgomery didn't attempt to appeal that issue at the time it was imposed.

As far as Montgomery's sentence, the appellate court found the trial court was well within statutory rights to enhance his sentence for being a habitual offender, and given the nature of his offenses and his character, his sentence was appropriate.
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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT