An appellate review increase in defendant’s sentence, while within an appellate court’s authority under Appellate Rule 7(B), is not ordered in this case, particularly since the State agreed that the sentence the trial judge imposed was appropriate.
Criminal
Britt v. State, No. 02A03-1004-CR-253, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 1, 2010)
Britt v. State (Ind. Ct. App., Mathias, J.)-When robbery defendant called his brother as a witness and did not attack the brother’s credibility, the brother’s prior robbery conviction was inadmissible character evidence.
Segar v. State, No. 49A02-1003-CR-269, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 1, 2010)
Defendant did not waive his objection to the admission of the marijuana found on his person when he earlier made no objection to officers’ “foundational” testimony that material in his pocket “resembled” and “was believed to be” marijuana.
Kocielko v. State, No. 20A03-1002-CR-218, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 2, 2010)
Defendant convicted of both deviate sexual conduct and fondling has the fondling conviction reversed, under the rule that multiple convictions cannot be imposed for the “same injurious consequences sustained by the same victim during a single confrontation.”
Curtis v. State, No. 20A03-1002-CR-110, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 19, 2010)
“[A] person’s unfitness to operate a vehicle . . . is to be determined by considering his capability as a whole, not component by component, such that impairment of any of the three abilities necessary for the safe operation of a vehicle equals impairment within the meaning of I.C. § 9-30-5-2.”