Consecutivity for intimidation sentence enhanced with habitual offender status and for “progressive penalty statute” enhanced second-conviction auto theft did not violate the prohibition of “double enhancement” when the enhancements were not based on the same prior felony conviction.
Criminal
Sparks v. State, No. 49A02-1207-CR-593, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 26, 2013).
When probationer heard judge say judge was inclined to impose a four year sentence if probationer admitted the violation and probationer then admitted, court’s imposition of a five year sentence without a hearing on the violation was fundamental error.
Carrillo v. State, No. 49A02-1112-PC-1209, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 18, 2013).
Suggests the trial court judge may play a role in having defense counsel advise defendant of the immigration consequences of a guilty plea, in holding that it was not ineffective assistance in 2006 for counsel to fail to determine whether defendant was not a citizen.
Carrillo v. State, No. 49A05-1108-PC-437, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 18, 2013).
Defendant’s relationships with family and length of presence in the United States were sufficient to establish he might not have accepted a guilty plea bargain had he been advised of the immigration consequences of the plea.
Florida v. Harris, No. 11–817, __ U.S. __ (Feb. 19, 2013).
To determine if there is probable cause based on a drug dog alert, this decision establishes the Fourth Amendment analysis for when “a sniff is up to snuff.”