Evidence that traffic stop motorist reached her hand into her purse to answer her cellphone while officer was trying to handcuff her for safety reasons did not suffice to prove crime of resisting arrest.
Criminal
Gilmore v. State, No. 40A01-1011-CR-553, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 24, 2011).
After defendant had initially been found indigent and a reassessment of indigence elicited no evidence of a change in financial status, the trial court’s statement that an evaluation of defendant’s behavior (which had been obstreperous) was also relevant to indigence prompted an appellate finding the trial judge abused his discretion in finding the defendant to no longer be indigent; trial court’s finding that the defendant had forfeited his right to appointed counsel by his conduct was reversed on the basis that, without a hearing warning defendant that his conduct could result in loss of appointed counsel, the defendant could not be said to have made a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel by his conduct.
Randolph v. Buss, No. 33A04-1010-MI-684, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 26, 2011).
Legislature intended that inmate’s left-over educational credit time after his release on parole would not still be available to him when his parole was revoked and he returned to prison.
Lock v. State, No. 35A04-1010-CR-641, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 26, 2011).
Evidence defendant’s motorcycle was going 43 miles per hour did not prove its “maximum design speed” was 25 miles per hour or more, a “design speed” the State had to prove in order to show defendant was operating a “motor vehicle” rather than a “motorized bicycle” so that defendant was guilty of driving while suspended.
Hawkins v. State, No. 79A02-1101-CR-100, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 18, 2011).
Sentence modification statute’s 365 day period in which judge may modify without prosecutor agreement starts when original sentence is imposed and is not “reset” with a resentencing.