Strength of case against him and magnitude of benefit he received from his plea bargain were primary factors supporting conclusion prisoner would have entered his guilty plea even had defense counsel properly advised him of the potential for deportation.
Criminal
Thomas v. State, No. 49A02-1109-CR-830, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 9, 2012).
Defense counsel’s restraint in examining witness in a “discovery deposition” did not make the deposition inadmissible at trial when witness refused to testify, since the defense had the opportunity to vigorously examine the witness but chose not to do so.
Wilson v. State, No. 79A05-1107-CR-350, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May, 9, 2012).
By fleeing from his automobile at the approach of the police the driver abandoned the vehicle for purposes of the Fourth Amendment, so that he could not object to a search of the vehicle.
Ludack v. State, No. 49A02-1109-CR-930, __N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 25, 2012).
Defendant’s question to detective on cross as to whether defendant admitted any of the allegations against him during detective’s interview opened the door to State questions eliciting from detective that defendant had neither admitted nor denied any allegations.
Westmoreland v. State, No. 49A04-1107-CR-356, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., April 17, 2012).
Applies U.S. Supreme Court ruling that police may not pat down a vehicle passenger during a routine traffic stop unless they reasonably believe he is armed and dangerous.