Courts may modify a sentence only if the new sentence would not have violated the terms of the valid plea agreement had the new sentence been originally imposed
Criminal
State v. Stafford, No. 39S04-1712-CR-749, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Aug. 7, 2019).
Companion case to Rodriguez v. State reaffirming that trial courts are bound by the terms of a plea agreement and may only modify a sentence in a way that would have been authorized at the time of sentencing.
Cardosi v. State, No. 18S-LW-181, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., August 7, 2019).
Defendant’s conviction of murder and sentence to life in prison without parole upheld, finding that the evidence was sufficient, jurors were properly admonished, co-conspirator’s text messages were properly admitted, reading a withdrawn accomplice liability instruction was not improper, and court properly considered a non-statutory aggravator when imposing sentence.
Davis v. State, No. 19A-CR-631, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 31, 2019).
Trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant’s request for an attorney made during the bench trial more than one year after affirming his request for self-representation.
Dadouch v. State, No. 19S-CR-404, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., July 16, 2019).
Trial judges should use both the written advisement of rights form together with the dialogue set forth in the Criminal Benchbook when advising defendants of their rights in a misdemeanor case.