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.
Criminal
Schuck v. State, No. 73A01-1507-CR-981, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 4, 2016).
Investigatory costs should be reimbursed because investigation was necessary even though defendant pleaded guilty.
Barany v. State, No. 17A04-1510-CR-1734, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 4, 2016).
Trial court properly denied defendant’s request for return of the firearm used to commit murder; defendant cannot profit from sale of murder weapon.
Bowman v. State, No. 21S04-1510-CR-604, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., April 26, 2016).
Despite a second baggie of evidence not being tested to prove it was heroin after a first bag of heroin was tested, the evidence was sufficient to sustain conviction.
Sanford v. State, No. 49S05-1604-PC-210, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., April 27, 2016).
Under the unique circumstances of this case, defendant has permission to file a belated Notice of Appeal under Post-Conviction Rule 2 because the defendant’s failure to file a timely Notice of Appeal was not his fault, and the defendant has been diligent in requesting permission to file a belated Notice of Appeal under the Rule.