Time of counsel’s appointment, not his appearance, cuts off defendant’s ability to make a valid pro se motion for early trial.
Criminal
Wilhoite v. State, No. 34A04-1303-CR-138, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 23, 2014).
There is no crime of conspiracy to commit an attempt to commit a crime, but failure to object waived the error,which was not fundamental as the defendant was effectively tried and convicted of conspiracy to commit armed robbery.
C.R. v. State, No. 50A03-1307-CR-297, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 23, 2014).
In this case, a police dog’s alert to the presence of narcotics in a vehicle gave an officer “probable cause to arrest and thus search the vehicle’s passenger.”
Taylor v. State, No. 45A03-1310-CR-406, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 24, 2014).
Misdemeanor expungement statutes as in effect prior to Mar. 26, 2014 did not allow trial court to deny expungement based on victim’s statement.
Bleeke v. Lemmon, No. 02S05-1305-PL-364, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., Apr. 16, 2014).
When parolee’s conviction had been for a sex crime against an adult female, parole conditions that he refrain from contact with his wife and his children were impermissible as they had no reasonable relation to his rehabilitation. Also, affirms Court of Appeals holding that statutes categorizing parolee as an “offender against children” because his conviction made him a “sexually violent predator” were overbroad as applied and that the “offender against children” status could not be imposed without some prior due process. Concludes that DOC’s SOMM (Sex Offender Management and Monitoring Program) requirements do not violate a participant’s privilege against self-incrimination.