Before counsel’s appointment, a trial court must consider a defendant’s pro se motion, like a request for an early trial. After counsel’s appointment, this consideration is left to the trial court’s discretion
Criminal
Fields v. State, 20A-CR-1799, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 26, 2021).
Notwithstanding a waiver of appeal provision in a plea agreement, a defendant who was sentenced contrary to law is an eligible defendant permitted to seek a belated appeal pursuant to Post-Conviction Rule 2.
Tate v. State, 19S-LW-444, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jan. 28, 2021).
Defendant was sentenced to life without parole. The record contained substantial evidence of both the torture and child-molest aggravators on which the jury could reasonably rely. However, because there was a third unchallenged aggravator, torture and child-molest aggravators notwithstanding, any error would not have altered the jury’s recommendation or the trial court’s decision to impose life without parole
Smith v. State, 20A-CR-1014, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 20, 2021).
In a trial in absentia, it is not error for the trial court to inform the jury that defendant was personally notified of the trial date.
Madden v. State, 20A-CR-196, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 12, 2021).
Convictions for Level 2 Kidnapping for Ransom and Level 5 Kidnapping, based on one removal, violate double jeopardy. In addition, convictions for both criminal confinement and kidnapping, both enhanced based on a demand for ransom, and are so compressed in terms of time, place, singleness of purpose, and continuity of action as to constitute a single transaction,” violate double jeopardy.