Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
A Bristol attorney has been publicly reprimanded by the Indiana Supreme Court in an order issued Thursday.
According to a disciplinary complaint, attorney Johnny Ulmer represented a client, Timothy Patrick, in a criminal direct appeal.
On July 15, 2021, Patrick was sentenced to two consecutive terms of 45 years for two convictions of Level 1 felony child molesting and 10 years for one conviction of Level 4 felony child molesting, which was suspended to probation.
Ulmer filed a notice of appeal on behalf of Patrick to the Court of Appeals of Indiana.
On Nov. 29, 2021, Ulmer filed an appellant’s brief on behalf of Patrick.
In the brief, Ulmer identified one issue for appeal, which was that Patrick’s 90-year sentence was inappropriate in light of the character of the offender.
Ulmer’s statement of facts in the brief was one sentence long and stated: “At trial Mr. Patrick’s daughter, Tane Patrick, testified as a witness for the state that her father provided shelter and food at his home that he shared with his wife, their mother, for her and her 4 children at one time and for her other siblings and their children.”
The statement of facts did not describe the facts relevant to the issues presented for review, as required by Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(6).
In the argument section of the brief, Ulmer identified the legal standard for determining whether a sentence is inappropriate as examining the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.
The substance of Ulmer’s argument consisted of two sentences which stated: “Mr. Patrick had no extensive criminal record, with minimal encounters with the justice system. As a father and grandfather he provided shelter and food for his adult children and their children.”
Ulmer’s argument was not supported by cogent reasoning and citations to the record, as required by Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a), according to the complaint.
His argument did not address the nature of the offense, which is the other factor to be considered to determine whether a sentence is inappropriate.
The Court of Appeals of Indiana accordingly held the client’s sole appellate claim was waived, noting that Ulmer’s brief was “woefully inadequate” and “essentially made no argument at all.”
According to the disciplinary order, the parties agreed that Ulmer violated these Indiana Professional Conduct Rules prohibiting the following misconduct: 1.3: Failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness, and 8.4(d): Engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
The Indiana Supreme Court, having considered the submissions of the parties and Ulmer’s lack of prior discipline, approved the agreed discipline and imposed a public reprimand for Ulmer’s misconduct.
Ulmer was admitted to the bar in October 2007, according to the Indiana Roll of Attorneys, and is listed as active in good standing.
The costs of this proceeding will be assessed against Ulmer.
Chief Justice Loretta Rush issued the order, with all justices concurring.
The case is In the Matter of: Johnny W. Ulmer, Respondent, 23S-DI-166.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.