A twenty-one-year-old falls into the jurisdictional gap our Indiana Supreme Court identified in D.P. and Neukam. While statutes that became effective on July 1, 2023, cured this jurisdictional gap, retroactive application of these statutes violate a defendant’s right under the United States Constitution to be free of ex post facto laws.
Smith v. State, No. 23S-MI-345, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 30, 2024).
When the State fails to meet its burden at a forfeiture hearing, the trial court must order the money released to the person to whom it belongs. When the money was seized from the person contesting the forfeiture, the court will release the money to that person. But when someone else contests the forfeiture, that party must produce evidence showing the money belongs to them. The court must then determine whether that person has established ownership. If so, the court must order the money returned to that person. But if that person has not established ownership, the court must order the money returned to the person from whom the money was seized.
Converging Capital, LLC v. Steglich, No. 23A-CC-2854, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 1, 2024).
There is no limitations period for the initiation of proceedings supplemental.
Lane v. State, No. 24S-CR-150, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 2, 2024).
Sentencing courts should consider the full range of available options, including community-based rehabilitation programs, for defendants who commit low-level offenses but pose little continuing danger to others. However, to ensure public safety, courts should consider extended jail sentences for low-level offenders with a history of violence who pose a continuing threat to others. Reviewing courts will defer to a trial court’s considered assessment that a person is too dangerous to receive anything but a lengthy executed sentence.
Roush v. Roush, No. 23A-DC-2290 __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 2, 2024).
Trial court abused its discretion when it granted attorney’s motion to withdraw in violation of T.R. 3.1(H). No prejudice would have resulted to the other party had the trial court continued the hearing by 10 days to give the required party notice of her attorney’s intent to withdraw.