• Skip to main content
  • Skip to footer
  • Categories
    • Civil
    • Criminal
    • Juvenile
  • Courts
    • Supreme
    • Appeals
    • Tax
    • SCOTUS
    • 7th Circuit
  • Judges

Case Clips

Published by the Indiana Office of Court Services

Criminal

Elzey v. State, No. 24S-CR-436, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Nov. 20, 2025).

November 24, 2025 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: L. Rush, M. Massa, Supreme

The Indiana State Public Defender must represent all indigent individuals who are confined in a penal facility in Indiana or committed to the Department of Correction due to a criminal conviction or delinquency adjudication. However, the Public Defender Statute, I.C. 33-40-1-2, and our post-conviction rules specifically Post-Conviction Rule 1(9)(a), still enable SPD to exercise its discretion in agreeing to representation.

Anderson v. State, No. 25S-CR-294, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Nov. 13, 2025).

November 17, 2025 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: C. Goff, G. Slaughter, Supreme

A sentence is illegal if it is outside the prescribed statutory range or is unconstitutional. An appeal challenging an illegal sentence cannot be waived.

Adkins v. State, No. 25A-PC-438, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 3, 2025).

November 3, 2025 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, L. Weissmann

Indiana Post-Conviction Rule 1(10) limits a court’s authority to resentence a defendant for the same offense after post-conviction relief. It neither curtails the State’s authority to file a new charge based on new evidence nor restricts the sentencing court from applying the proper statutory range to that conviction.

Lanier v. State, No. 25A-CR-769, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 3, 2025).

November 3, 2025 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, C. Bradford

Under the Indiana Constitution, the question of whether an alleged mistake of law is reasonable under Article 1, Section 11, requires a determination of whether the alleged mistake of the law is reasonable under Litchfield.

Mitchell v. State, No. 25A-CR-1322, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 6, 2025).

October 6, 2025 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, E. Brown

The plain language of Ind. Code § 35-38-2-1.8 does not grant, or even address, the trial court’s authority to modify the conditions of probation upon a defendant’s motion.

  • Go to page 1
  • Go to page 2
  • Go to page 3
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 324
  • Go to Next Page »

Footer

About

Case Clips is a weekly publication of the Indiana Office of Court Services featuring appellate opinions curated by IOCS staff for Indiana judges.

Subscribe
  • Flickr
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Archive

Copyright © 2025 · Indiana Office of Court Services · courts.in.gov/iocs