Record is not “silent” for purposes of Boykin rights waiver advisement because guilty plea hearing recording was destroyed; here, P-C.R. petitioner presented no evidence he was not advised of Boykin rights, so “presumption of regularity” that advice was given applied.
Criminal
Hobbs v. State, No. 19A01-0904-CR-187, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 21, 2009)
Warrantless search of defendant’s car, conducted in the evening after defendant’s arrest on an outstanding warrant and after an alert by a drug-sniff dog, did not violate Indiana Constitution’s Article I section 11.
Pendergrass v. State, No. 71S03-0808-CR-00445, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Sept. 24, 2009).
Admission of DNA test results without testimony of technician who performed DNA test procedures but with testimony of lab supervisor who reviewed the specific results and of expert who prepared paternity analysis satisfied defendant’s federal Crawford Confrontation Clause right.
Slone v. State, No. 57A03-0904-CR-162, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 9, 2009)
Evidence that defendant bought two twenty-count packages of pseudoephedrine within one week during cold season was insufficient to prove defendant knowingly purchased drugs containing more than three grams of ephedrine within one week.
Peoples v. State, No. 79A02-0812-CR-1141, __ N.E.2d __ (Inc. Ct. App., Aug. 28, 2009)
Habitual offender enhancement of a drug dealing offense requires that only one prior have also been a dealing offense, as the offense being sentenced for counts as one of the “two or more unrelated dealing convictions.”