Plea agreement, child support issues granted transfer

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer to one case dealing with child support, and two cases dealing post-conviction relief. The court also granted transfer to three cases involving sex offenders.

In the case Marla K. Young v. Timothy S. Young, No. 09A05-0701-CV-52, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court's calculation of Timothy's child support obligation. The appellate court found the trial court erroneously calculated Timothy's weekly gross income, and remanded the trial court to add $100 to his weekly gross income and recalculate the amount of income to be imputed to Marla; the COA also ordered Timothy's child support obligation to be recalculated.

Two of the transferred cases - Anthony A. Hopkins v. State, No. 49A05-0705-PC-279, and State v. Michael A. Cozart, No. 22A01-0704-PC-183 - deal with plea agreements. Hopkins appealed the post-conviction court's denial of one of his claims for post-conviction relief, contending the court erred in failing to advise him of his Boykin rights, which caused his guilty plea to be involuntary and unintelligent. The Court of Appeals ordered his guilty plea vacated because the trial court only advised him of his right to trial by jury; because Hopkins admitted to the habitual offender enhancement, the COA ruled he did plead guilty to being a habitual offender.

In Cozart, the Court of Appeals affirmed the post-conviction court's order granting Cozart's petition for post-conviction relief, ruling Cozart didn't plead guilty knowingly and voluntarily. The state argued the trial court was not required to advise Cozart regarding the effect his prior felony convictions would have on the court's authority to suspend a portion of the minimum sentence he faced after pleading guilty. Cozart claimed he didn't understand the trial court was without discretion to suspend any of the minimum sentence he faced because of his prior convictions.

The three other cases granted transfer involve sex offenders - In the Matter of J.C.C., No. 49A02-0403-JV-266; Richard P. Wallace v. State of Indiana, No. 49A02-0706-CR-498; and Todd L. Jensen v. State of Indiana. All three ask the high court to decide on matters regarding registering as a sex offender. (A story in today's Indiana Lawyer Daily includes more information about these cases.)

Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  2. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  3. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise

  4. I have a degree at law, recent MS in regulatory studies. Licensed in KS, admitted b4 S& 7th circuit, but not to Indiana bar due to political correctness. Blacklisted, nearly unemployable due to hostile state action. Big Idea: Headwinds can overcome, esp for those not within the contours of the bell curve, the Lego Movie happiness set forth above. That said, even without the blacklisting for holding ideas unacceptable to the Glorious State, I think the idea presented above that a law degree open many vistas other than being a galley slave to elitist lawyers is pretty much laughable. (Did the law professors of Indiana pay for this to be published?)

  5. Joe, you might want to do some reading on the fate of Hoosier whistleblowers before you get your expectations raised up.