Master commissioner, given the same statutory authority as a magistrate, was accordingly not authorized to impose sentence following a guilty plea.
Criminal
Fletcher v. State, No. 79A02-1009-CR-1096, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 18, 2012).
The date of counsel’s appearance, not of counsel’s appointment, determines whether a defendant’s pro se Criminal Rule 4(B) speedy trial motion is valid.
Castillo-Aguilar v. State, No. 20A04-1003-CR-195, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 20, 2012).
Some questions on police “information sheet,” purportedly used for administrative booking purposes, were investigative in nature under the circumstances of the case, and as the defendant was in custody when given the sheet to fill out the investigative questions were Miranda “interrogation” requiring Miranda warnings before defendant filled the sheet out in order for his answers to be admissible in evidence.
Woodson v. State, No. 49A05-1106-CR-306, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 6, 2012).
Officer lacked reasonable suspicion for a Terry stop merely because individual stopped was in a drug “hot-zone.”
Sickels v. State, No. 20A03-1102-CR-66, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 6, 2012).
Conviction on three counts of nonsupport for failure to pay in gross support order for three children did not violate Indiana Double Jeopardy law’s actual evidence doctrine; nonsupport restitution “victims” were the children, not the custodial parent; restitution order erroneously characterized restitution as “a civil judgment.”