The “valid prescription” requirement is intended to assure the prescription was not obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, or deceit and thus, an expired prescription is still a “valid prescription” under Ind. Code § 35-48-4-6(a).
Criminal
State v. Riggs, 20A-CR-2144, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 29, 2021).
Any substantive provisions of the Child Deposition Statute, Ind. Code § 35-40-5-11.5, do not exempt the procedural provisions of the Statute from the general rule that the Indiana Trial Rules supersede conflicting procedural statutes. The procedural provisions of the Child Deposition Statute conflict with the trial rules, and therefore the procedural provisions are unenforceable.
State v. Neukam, 20A-CR-2006, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 20, 2021).
The Indiana General Assembly has not yet provided the statutory authority to grant subject matter jurisdiction to an adult criminal court in the situation where the adult criminal court is aware that an individual is alleged to have committed a delinquent act of child molesting when he was under eighteen (a child) but is twenty-one or older at the time the State seeks to file charges against him.
Davis v. State, 21A-CR-52, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 15, 2021).
Revision of a sentence under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) requires the appellant to demonstrate that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender; failure to address both prongs results in waiver of appropriateness review.
Isom v. State, 20A-CR-2261, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 30, 2021).
Defendant’s trial and appellate counsel were not ineffective; the post-conviction court did not err in denying relief.