Defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal could not prevent his challenging on appeal the trial court’s erroneous imposition of consecutive habitual offender enhancements not agreed to in the bargain.
Criminal
Dye v. State, No. 20S04-1201-CR-5, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Mar. 21, 2013).
“[T]he State is not . . . permitted to support [an] habitual offender finding with a conviction that arose out of the same res gestae that was the source of the conviction used to prove [defendant] was a serious violent felon.”
Bethea v. State, No. 18S05-1206-PC-304, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Mar. 12, 2013).
Overrules cases holding that an element of a charge dismissed by plea agreement cannot be used as an aggravating sentencing factor, and holds that instead elements or conduct involved in dismissed charges may be used in sentencing unless the parties provide otherwise in their plea agreement.
Heaton v. State, No. 48S02-1206-CR-350, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Mar. 5, 2013).
A probation revocation court must apply the preponderance standard, not probable cause, in determining whether the state has proved the defendant committed a new offense.
Santiago v. State, No. 45A03-1207-CR-304, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 5, 2013).
Taken as a whole, trial court’s presumption of innocence instructions were proper, even though they did not contain express direction that the jurors must fit the evidence to the presumption of innocence or reconcile the evidence on the theory defendant was innocent.