A sentence is illegal if it is outside the prescribed statutory range or is unconstitutional. An appeal challenging an illegal sentence cannot be waived.
Criminal
Adkins v. State, No. 25A-PC-438, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 3, 2025).
Indiana Post-Conviction Rule 1(10) limits a court’s authority to resentence a defendant for the same offense after post-conviction relief. It neither curtails the State’s authority to file a new charge based on new evidence nor restricts the sentencing court from applying the proper statutory range to that conviction.
Lanier v. State, No. 25A-CR-769, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 3, 2025).
Under the Indiana Constitution, the question of whether an alleged mistake of law is reasonable under Article 1, Section 11, requires a determination of whether the alleged mistake of the law is reasonable under Litchfield.
Mitchell v. State, No. 25A-CR-1322, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 6, 2025).
The plain language of Ind. Code § 35-38-2-1.8 does not grant, or even address, the trial court’s authority to modify the conditions of probation upon a defendant’s motion.
Nielson v. State, No. 24A-CR-2295, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 27, 2025).
The invited-error doctrine applies only when a party challenging a trial-court action affirmatively requested the action as part of a deliberate, well-informed trial strategy.