ILNews

Judges order court to take second look at restitution attorney must pay

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Monroe County attorney who pleaded guilty to Class D felony counterfeiting and ordered to pay $15,000 in restitution to a victim may not have to pay that full amount after the Indiana Court of Appeals Wednesday ordered the trial court to take another look at the restitution amount.

Bloomington attorney Philip H. Chamberlain was charged with five Class C felonies stemming from his involvement in the development of a golf course in Orleans, Ind., for which he was a consultant. The golf course was owned by Dwight Hart.

Chamberlain convinced acquaintance Shannon Ramey and his girlfriend Helen Fields, who own Dorothy Apartment Rentals, to invest money on behalf of their company into the golf course. Unbeknownst to Ramey, Fields or Hart, Chamberlain was cashing checks made out to the golf course and kept a portion of the money.

At one point, Hart loaned Chamberlain $5,000 for performing work as a consultant, money he never repaid.

At his sentencing and restitution hearing, Chamberlain explained he repaid Hart $25,500 before any criminal charges were filed against him. The trial court ordered him to pay Hart $15,000 in restitution, which included the $5,000 for the unpaid loan.

Chamberlain, pro se, appealed, claiming the loan shouldn’t be included in restitution because his counterfeiting conviction didn’t cover that incident. The Court of Appeals agreed in the not-for-publication opinion, Philip H. Chamberlain v. State of Indiana, 53A01-1305-CR-247.

“But because we do not have the transcript from Chamberlain’s guilty-plea hearing, we cannot consult the factual basis for his counterfeiting conviction to see what written instrument it covered. Without this information, we cannot determine the amount of restitution, if any, Hart is entitled to after taking into account that Chamberlain has already paid Hart $25,500. We must therefore remand this case to the trial court for it to determine the amount of restitution, if any, Hart is entitled to for the counterfeiting conviction only, taking into consideration Chamberlain’s $25,500 payment to Hart,” the appellate court ruled.  

Chamberlain received an interim suspension June 2013 pending final resolution of any resulting disciplinary action.

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. Contact Lea Shelemey attorney in porter county Indiana. She just helped us win our case...she is awesome...

  2. We won!!!! It was a long expensive battle but we did it. I just wanted people to know it is possible. And if someone can point me I. The right direction to help change the way the courts look as grandparents as only grandparents. The courts assume the parent does what is in the best interest of the child...and the court is wrong. A lot of the time it is spite and vindictiveness that separates grandparents and grandchildren. It should not have been this long and hard and expensive...Something needs to change...

  3. Typo on # of Indiana counties

  4. The Supreme Court is very proud that they are Giving a billion dollar public company from Texas who owns Odyssey a statewide monopoly which consultants have said is not unnecessary but worse they have already cost Hoosiers well over $100 MILLION, costing tens of millions every year and Odyssey is still not connected statewide which is in violation of state law. The Supreme Court is using taxpayer money and Odyssey to compete against a Hoosier company who has the only system in Indiana that is connected statewide and still has 40 of the 82 counties despite the massive spending and unnecessary attacks

  5. Here's a recent resource regarding steps that should be taken for removal from the IN sex offender registry. I haven't found anything as comprehensive as of yet. Hopefully this is helpful - http://www.chjrlaw.com/removal-indiana-sex-offender-registry/

ADVERTISEMENT