ILNews

High court grants 4 transfers

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Supreme Court granted four transfers last week, though one was remanded to the state's Court of Appeals while another came with a significant ruling about community rental restrictions.

In taking the cases, justices now have a chance to weigh in on the denial of post-conviction relief regarding a habitual offender enhancement and driving an ATV while drunk on private property.

On May 13, the high court granted transfer in State of Indiana v. Adam L. Manuwal, No. 50A05-0703-CR-182, which asks whether the trial court correctly ruled that a driver of an ATV shouldn't be prosecuted for driving under the influence on his or her own property, pursuant to the Indiana Codes Sections 9-30-5-1 and -2.

In November, the Court of Appeals affirmed Manuwal's motion to dismiss because he was improperly charged under the general OWI statutes, ruling that he should have been charged for violating Section 14-16-1-23 - the statute governing a defendant's operation of an off-road vehicle while under the influence.

Justices also will consider Anthony A. Hopkins v. State of Indiana, No. 49A05-0705-PC-279. Hopkins appealed his denial for post-conviction relief, arguing the trial court failed to advise him that his guilty plea included an element of being a habitual offender and not just stipulated to the underlying felonies. Not being advised of those rights - dubbed Boykin rights - caused his guilty plea to be involuntary and unintelligent, so his plea should be vacated, Hopkins contended. The Court of Appeals reversed the post-conviction court and remanded for further proceedings, and now that decision has been vacated.

The Supreme Court also granted transfer in West Villas II of Willowridge Homeowners Association v. Edna McGlothin, No. 34S02-0805-CV-266. Click here to read IL's coverage of the case.

Another transfer in Margaret R. and Darrell G. Smith v. JP Morgan and Litton Loan, No. 89A01-0702-CV-00094, resulted in the justices' remanding that case to the Court of Appeals, since the lower court had denied the Smiths' pro se motion for emergency stay from the sale of their home because of late filings and not properly following the appellate rules. Upon transfer, the Supreme Court reinstated the appeal.
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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT