9 a.m. 20A03-1202-PC-88. Gulzar pled guilty to theft in 2006. In 2011, he petitioned for post-conviction relief on grounds counsel had been ineffective for failing to advise him that one consequence of the guilty plea was his automatic deportation from the United States. The Elkhart Superior Court denied post-conviction relief, and the Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished memorandum decision. Gulzar v. State, 20A03-1202-PC-88, slip op. (Ind. Ct. App. Aug. 7, 2012), trans. pending. Gulzar has petitioned the Supreme Court to accept jurisdiction over the appeal, arguing that the Court of Appeals decision conflicts with Segura v. State, 749 N.E.2d 496 (Ind. 2001).
Jack, I was only responding to bill's comment of tying everybody in government together. I agree with you though, it takes one bad apple to ruin the bunch.. As in any profession. What's truly unfair is when somebody violates someone's trust and takes complete advantage of someone
John’s comment is unfair. The majority of attorneys can be trusted. Unfortunately, all it takes is one greedy, unscrupulous, immoral attorney to jade the public.
In regards to bill's comment about trusting the cover meant. We can trust them about as much as we can trust attorneys'.
This is disturbing to learn...
Yikes!