A second or successive post-conviction petition is subject to the screening procedure outlined in P-C. R. 1(12) and must have appellate court authorization to proceed; however, a post-conviction petition that raises only issues emerging from a new trial, new sentencing, or new appeal obtained from a federal court through habeas proceedings is not a “second” or “successive” petition and does not require prior authorization.
Criminal
Neal v. State, No. 19A-CR-174, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 15, 2019).
Trial court must conduct a hearing to determine defendant’s ability to pay public defender fees and medical expenses; must reduce the medical expenses incurred by any amount of co-payment made by inmate and insurance or Medicaid reimbursement expected; and, must state a statutory basis for requiring defendant to pay a public defender fee.
Peele v. State, No. 19A-CR-313, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 15, 2019).
The warrantless search of the sock that fell from defendant’s pants containing illegal drugs exceeded the proper scope of a Terry search in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, and the evidence obtained in the search should not have been admitted at trial.
Laboa v. State, No. 18A-CR-951, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 15, 2019).
When a meritorious PCR petition was filed by a pro se petitioner, and neither party moved for summary disposition, the post-conviction court should have either ordered the cause to be submitted by affidavit or held an evidentiary hearing.
Smith v. State, No. 18A-CR-3009, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 7, 2019).
The State failed to establish police officer’s decision to impound defendant’s vehicle adhered to established departmental routine or regulation. While evidence of the department’s written procedure need not be introduced, more than conclusory testimony from an officer is required.