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.
Criminal
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.
Temme v. State, 21S-CR-310, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 21, 2021).
As long as the defendant bears no active responsibility in his early release, he or she is entitled to credit while erroneously at liberty as if still incarcerated. However, the defendant’s projected release date serves as a firm backstop. When it discovers an error, the State must petition a trial court to recommit the defendant to resume his or her sentence if, after calculating credit time, any sentence remains to be served