The trial court properly admitted defendant’s statements to police after an illegal search as the Court grafted the attenuation doctrine onto our Article 1, Section 11 jurisprudence as a natural limit to the exclusionary rule.
Criminal
Kaushal v. State, No. 49A04-1612-CR-2862, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 4, 2018).
In order to establish prejudice by counsel’s deficient performance resulting in a guilty plea, a defendant must substantiate his claim with contemporaneous evidence and not rely merely on post hoc claims that he would not have pled guilty had he been better advised.
State v. Lucas, No. 18A-CR-92, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 28, 2018).
The search of a vehicle in defendant’s garage did not unconstitutionally exceed the scope of the search warrant under the Fourth Amendment. A search warrant authorizing a search of a particularly described premises permits the search of vehicles owned or controlled by the owner of, and found on, the premises.
Hummel v. State, No. 75A03-1710-PC-2449, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 6, 2018).
A PCR court has the authority to accept agreements that modify the sentence in the underlying criminal case, whether that judge is an elected judge, a judge pro tempore, or a special judge. Once accepted, the State is bound by the terms of that agreement
Schmitt v. State, No. 83A04-1711-CR-2720, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 10, 2018
Courts are no longer statutorily required to have prosecutorial consent to modify a sentence, but if it makes a preliminary determination that it would grant a petition to modify it should request documentation from the DOC and hold a hearing on the petition.