*1 compliance clearly with the Rules self laudato- The advertisements of Professional Furthermore, by by stating their adver- before the Commis- ry. Conduct intervention respondents attempt prompt “offer[ed] Their tisement that sion. action a you need win mitigates track record and resources rectify their flawed advertisement settlement,” message respondents’ severity somewhat the misconduct. unjustified expectation likely to create private satisfied that a We are therefore in ev- results could be obtained that similar reprimand appropriate in this case. is handle, they were hired to ery claim or case therefore, ordered, is, respon- It that the specific reference to factual without given repri- a private dents in this ease be particular legal claims circumstances set forth above. mand for the misconduct personal person A unfamiliar with or cases. against respon- Costs are assessed injury litigation might understand adver- dents. any that claim or ease promise tisement to by result in a respondents handled would settlement. We conclude that
favorable deceptive, misleading,
advertisement was of Prof. laudatory
self and thus violative 7.1(b).
Cond.R. Rule
Indiana Professional Conduct
7.1(d)(4)provides: not, himself, lawyer
A shall on behalf of BERRY, Defendant-Appellant, associate, any lawyer partner or or other firm, par- affiliated him or his use or any ticipate public in the use of form of Indiana, Plaintiff-Appellee. STATE of communication which contains a statement opinion quality or of the services as No. 49S00-9612-CR-739. representation implication a or contains Supreme Court of Indiana. regarding quality legal services. “premier” By per- describing themselves Dec. area, injury sonal law firm their the re- spondents opinion as the quality offered an render, implying
of the services legal
their are better those services
provided practitioners. other area respondents’ advertisement con- implication regarding
tained at least an
quality legal violated services thus 7.1(d)(4).
Prof.Cond.R. advertisement,
Through respon- their sought
dents to attract clients with the lure unjustified expectations clearly unver- Ideally, attorney
ifiable statements. adver-
tising process of facilitates the informed se- lawyer by legal
lection of consumers of 7.1(a). See Prof.Cond.R.
services. Adver- misleading deceptive containing
tisements truly
assertions make informed im- selection
possible open overreaching the door
by lawyers. recog respondents
We note that the began
nized their errors and efforts to cor bring
rect the advertisement and it into
445 support judgment, weighing and without assessing credibility, evidence witness we that no conclude reasonable trier of fact could find the guilty beyond defendant reasonable doubt. Case v.
223, (Ind.1984); Loyd 226 272 Ind. 404, 407, 1260, (1980), 1264 cert. denied, 449 U.S. 101 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 105. supporting judg
The evidence ment spent reveals that defendant evening of October with two other men, Ellis, Gregory Carlton Holcomb and visiting clubs driving various around. driving While near the Eagle Apart Terrace Complex, the defendant noticed Ed car, ward White’s a white Buick Park Avenue gold-colored rims. The defendant stat get ed that he wanted the rims from it. Ellis, time, driving who was stopped a corner to let out. the defendant A short later, try time Ellis and Holcomb decided to stop defendant. backed comer, around the saw a Holcomb flash and pulled up heard a shot. The then defendant them, driving behind White’s car. The three away, stopped briefly men drove at a hotel lot, parking and then drove to area where police eventually found the victim’s car. El helped lis strip and Holcomb the defendant Howe, rims, radio, Indianapolis, Howard for Defen- car three and the dant-Appellant. battery. placed The men then them in the driving. trunk of the car Ellis was Holcomb Modisett, Jeffrey General, Attorney A. that, away driving testified while from the Herriman, General, Deputy Attorney John B. car, victim’s the defendant admitted that “he Indianapolis, Plaintiff-Appellee. for up walked behind him and him.” Rec shot pathologist ord at A forensic testified DICKSON, Justice. that White’s was a gunshot death caused defendant-appellant, Berry, The was police The back the head. techni robbery convicted of murder and and sen- fingerprints cian recovered from several sixty years tenced consecutive terms for items found in the ear from the outside eight years robbery. the murder analyst fingerprint of the car. A identified The trial court also that these ordered sen- fingerprints on defendant’s the ear and run consecutive to a fingerprints also identified both Holcomb for an unrelated conviction Ellis either on car or on items found appeal, this direct the defendant claims with the ear. support that the evidence was insufficient offered alibi defendant an witness at his convictions and that the sentence consec- attempted to portray Ellis and Hol- utive to the unrelated conviction was error. perpetrators, explaining comb as the his own An appellate fingerprints by offering claim of insufficient evi on car the excuse if, prevail proba strip will considering helped dence that he later them the ear after tive evidence and reasonable inferences that the crime had been committed. He essen- evidence, further held reweigh the which We
tially
asks us
“whether terms of
trial court
determine
appellate
on
review.
undertake
concurrently
shall be
served
support
evidence
There
sufficient
consecutively,” granted in
35-50-
Ind.Code
the defendant commit-
jury’s conclusion that
l-2(a),
general
author
was “restrictive.
robbery.
*3
ted the murder
ity is limited to those occasions when
next contends that
The defendant
of
meting
court is
out two more terms
authority
impose the
no
to
trial court had
Kendrick, 529
at
imprisonment.”
N.E.2d
consecutive to the sen
in this case
sentences
Accord,
State,
Seay v.
550 N.E.2d
1312.
separate,
in a
case.
tence
unrelated
(Ind.1990).
1284, 1289
part:
provides, in relevant
applicable statute
after
the state of the law
Ken-
imprisonment
may
terms of
“The court
order
Seay
drick and
was that
consecutive sen-
consecutively
if
sen
even
be served
imposed
only be
under Ind.Code
tence could
imposed
are
at the same time.”
not
35-50-l-2(a)
§
if the
consecu-
sentence was
35-50-l-2(c)
(Supp.1996).
§
We
IND.Code
(i)
imposed
to another sentence
tive
portion
noted
of
statute
have
that this
(ii) by
same time and
the same court.
contemporaneity
“essentially
overturned
previous
v.
cases. Weaver
requirement”
1994, the legislature
In
amended Ind.Code
(Ind.1996).
State,
In
may
provide:
§
“The court
or-
35-50-1-2
Weaver,
imposed a
the trial court
sentence
terms of
to be served con-
der
that it
consecutive
and ordered
be served
not im-
secutively even if the sentences are
eases
in
imposed in unrelated
tried
sentences
1994 Ind. Acts.
posed at the same time.”
had
different counties. Because the statute
P.L.
confronted this amendment
164 We
effect,
gone into
court lacked
yet
not
trial
year
last
in Weaver v.
consecutive cannot, of a in the absence authority, statutory postponed.”
express be