The imposition of a thirteen-year habitual offender enhancement was improper because the two prior out-of-state Level 3 felony convictions had to be treated as Level 6 felony convictions under the Indiana statute in force at the time (February 16, 2017). The legislature amended the definition of a “Level 6 felony” for purposes of the habitual offender enhancement effective March 8, 2018.
Criminal
Gary v. State, No. 18A-CR-2067, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 9, 2019).
Because some or all of the evidence could be used to prove defendant committed both felony intimidation and attempted murder, the conviction of intimidation is vacated as it violates his right against double jeopardy under the actual evidence test.
Baca v. State, No. 18A-CR-2756, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., April 30, 2019).
A trial court’s grant of a directed verdict for the defendant under Trial Rule 50 acts as an acquittal on that count and bars the State from amending the charge and a retrial.
Howard v. State, No. 18A-CR-1830, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., April 30, 2019).
The trial court abused its discretion when it permitted the State to amend the information two business days before the start of the trial as it did not give defendant a reasonable opportunity to prepare for and defend against the new counts.
Core v. State, No. 91A02-1611-PC-2604, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., April 24, 2019).
PCR Rule 2(1) allows an eligible defendant to appeal from a conviction or sentence after the time for filing an appeal has expired, but does not permit a belated appeal from a post-conviction or other post-judgment proceeding.