The jury’s LWOP recommendation implicitly reflected the necessary weighing determination; the trial court did not err in imposing the sentence. Considering his character and the nature of the crimes, the sentence was not inappropriate.
Criminal
Wellman v. State, No. 22A-CR-1673, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 10, 2023).
When a trial court grants a defendant’s motion for continuance because of the State’s failure to comply with the defendant’s discovery requests, the resulting delay is not chargeable to the defendant. It does not matter whether the State was negligent in complying the discovery request.
York v. State, No. 22A-CR-2214, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 8, 2023).
A handgun equipped with a switch device may constitute the offense of possession of a machine gun if the gun shoots; or can be readily restored to shoot; automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger as defined by Indiana Code § 35-31.5-2-190.
Davis v. State, No. 22S-CR-253, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 3, 2023).
If a defendant wishes to challenge their guilty plea, they cannot do so through a direct appeal; the issue of whether a defendant’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary should instead be pursued by filing a petition for post-conviction relief.
Clark v. State, No. 22A-CR-2421, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., April 25, 2023).
In the entrapment context, apparent agency does not depend on the principal’s express or implied authorization for the agent to act on the principal’s behalf; rather, apparent agency exists when a principal’s manifestations induce a third party to reasonably believe there is a principal-agent relationship.