Defendant’s conduct that occurred during a video hearing, and not in a courtroom, did not preclude application of the contempt statute.
Criminal
Saylor v. State, No. 39A05-1503-PC-113, __ N.E.3D__ (Ind. Ct. App., May 23, 2016).
Because defendant did not personally waive his right to a jury trial—rather, his attorney did—when he pled guilty to being a habitual offender, the Court vacated his habitual-offender adjudication and remanded the case for a new trial on that charge
Pugh v. State, No. 49A02-1506-CR-482, __N.E.3D__ (Ind. Ct. App., May 10, 2016).
Single larceny rule does not apply where robbery of husband, wife and daughter were distinct transactions; and continuous crime doctrine only applies where defendant has been charged multiple times with the same continuous offense.
Osborne v. State, No. 29A02-1511-CR-1931, __N.E.3d__ (Ind. Ct. App., May 12, 2016).
The “community caretaking function of police officers may apply to justify a traffic stop where the officer does not otherwise observe a traffic violation or have a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot,” but did not apply in this instance.
Simons v. State, No. 20A03-1512-CR-2158, __N.E. 3d__ (Ind. Ct. App., May 13, 2016).
Indiana statute requires sentencing judge to advise defendant of his earliest release date and maximum possible release date, and although such failure was harmless error in this case, the facts of another case might not lead to the same harmless error result.