After the trial court had accepted the plea agreement and entered judgment of conviction, defendant’s failure to appear for a presentence investigation did not permit the court to rescind the agreement and vacate the convictions.
Criminal
State v. Arnold, No. 22A05-1408-CR-387, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 27, 2015).
Motion to set aside habitual offender enhancement should have been treated as a postconviction relief petition; trial court erred by vacating only the habitual enhancement, when the habitual enhancement was an integral part of the plea agreement’s disposition of charged offenses.
Shelton v. State, No. 71A03-1408-Cr-309, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 27, 2015).
Search of an offender on community corrections monitored home detention is subject to the reasonable suspicion standard required for probationer searches; in this case, the circumstances conferred the required reasonable suspicion for a warrantless dog sniff search of the offender’s home and garage.
State v. Cunningham, No. 19S05-1409-CR-599, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Mar. 2, 2015).
Police validly required motorist to submit to a pat-down as a condition for allowing him to get out of his truck during a traffic stop, and the officer’s simple query about a pill bottle detected in the motorist’s pocket did not improperly extend the scope of the stop.
Bisard v. State, No. 02A03-1312-CR-492, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 4, 2015).
Trial court’s indication it would consider defendant’s use of certain evidence as opening the door to evidence of defendant’s subsequent criminal conduct was not a ruling admitting the subsequent conduct into evidence, so that defendant’s failure to present his evidence and obtain an actual ruling on an objection to the subsequent conduct evidence did not preserve the issue for appeal.