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.
Criminal
Lanier v. State, No. 25A-CR-769, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 3, 2025).
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).
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.
Nielson v. State, No. 24A-CR-2295, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 27, 2025).
The invited-error doctrine applies only when a party challenging a trial-court action affirmatively requested the action as part of a deliberate, well-informed trial strategy.
Sanchez v. State, No. 24A-CR-802, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 15, 2025).
Altice, C.J. Jose L. Lopez Sanchez, charged with operating while intoxicated (OWI), brings this interlocutory appeal of the trial court’s denial of his request to compel the discovery of police reports related to his criminal prosecution. He contends that the trial court erred in determining that the Access to Public Records Act (APRA), Ind. Code […]