ILNews

Magistrate, expungement bills pass committee

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Legislation updating Indiana’s expungement law – including language specifying where a petition for expungement must be filed – is now eligible for consideration by the full House. The expungment bill is one of several that moved out of committee Thursday.

House Bill 1155 was prepared by the Criminal Law and Sentencing Policy Study Committee. It, among other things, grants a defense attorney and a probation department access to expunged records if authorized by court order. The legislation also clears up how to expunge an arrest. Under current law, there are two inconsistent procedures for expunging arrest records. The bill also prohibits a person from waiving the right to expungement as part of a plea agreement. Amendments to the law were approved by the Courts and Criminal Code Committee.

That committee also approved HB 1145, which allows the judge of the Vanderburgh Circuit Court to appoint a second full-time magistrate. The introduced version of this bill was prepared by the Commission on Courts.

Several pieces of legislation moved out of the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday, including:

•    Senate Bill 27, which prohibits granting an adoption while certain appeals are pending. The introduced version of this bill was prepared by the Commission on Courts.

•    SB 56, which requires claims for payment from the Medical Malpractice Patient's Compensation Fund to be computed and paid every three months instead of every six months.  

•    SB 160, which provides that a new court with one or more new judges may not be established, and one or more new judges may not be added to an existing court, unless the establishment of the new court and the addition of the new judges to an existing court are authorized by state law.

The House Courts and Criminal Code Committee was assigned legislation this week regarding the St. Joseph Superior Court. HB 1298 changes the makeup of the St. Joseph Superior Court Judicial Nominating Commission and Commission on Judicial Qualifications by eliminating one of the three elected attorney members and all three of the appointed nonattorney members. Instead, the commission would consist of the judge of the St. Joseph Circuit Court, the judge of the St. Joseph Probate Court, the board president of the St. Joseph County commissioners, St. Joseph County sheriff, the mayor of South Bend, and the mayor of Mishawaka.

The bill also requires St. Joseph Superior judges to retire when they turn 75 years of age. It allows a judge of the court serving on June 30, 2014, who is 75 years of age, or a judge who will become 75 years of age before his or her  term expires, to continue to serve as judge of the court for the remainder of the term. The bill also requires only 40 percent of voters to be against retention to reject a judge as opposed to the current requirement of a majority vote.
 

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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT