Defendant’s convictions on five counts violated actual-evidence test for double jeopardy—though the court “merged” Counts II and IV into other counts, jeopardy still attached because it had previously entered judgment on them; and Counts III and V should also have been vacated and merged into Count I. But trial court could properly impose a longer sentence for the remaining Count I on remand, as long as it did not exceed the aggregate consecutive sentences previously imposed.
Additionally, sentencing order was defective for entering a habitual-offender sentence separately instead of applying as an enhancement to an underlying sentence.
Criminal
Washington v. State, No. 49A02-1405-CR-306, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 20, 2015).
Under recent SCOTUS decision in Rodriguez v. U.S., defendant’s traffic stop was not unreasonably extended by drug-dog sniff or by officer’s questions.
Singh v. State, No. 49A02-1410-CR-717, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 20, 2015).
Distinct evidence supported convictions for attempted promotion of human trafficking and criminal confinement; convictions therefore did not violate double jeopardy.
Rodgers v. State, No. 20A03-1412-CR-438, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 7, 2015).
Court could not order defendant to participate in victim-offender reconciliation program (VORP) without his agreement.
Bryant v. State, No. 90A04-1501-CR-11, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 7, 2015).
In prosecution for receiving stolen property, county where the property was stolen was a proper venue, regardless of whether defendant knew where the theft occurred.