In order to place a defendant in Purposeful Incarceration, the trial court must state in the Abstract of Judgment that, after successful completion of an appropriate therapeutic program, the court will consider a petition to modify defendant’s sentence.
Wamsley v. Tree City Village, No. 16A01-1706-CT-1355__ N.E.3d __(Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 28, 2018).
Trial court abused its discretion when it found that the failure to respond to the lawsuit by the defendant-landlords was the result of excusable neglect. Although landlords’ “status as a litigant may not rise to the level of ‘savvy’ and ‘sophisticated’…they are certainly experienced with litigation and the judicial procedural process through eviction proceedings, if nothing else” so inattention to the complaint and summons and their failure to consult with or discuss the suit with their insurer may constitute neglect, but it does not constitute excusable neglect under TR 60(B)(1).
In re: Petition for Expungement of the Conviction Records of B.S., No. 02A05-1710-XP-2262, __ N.E.3d __(Ind. Ct. App., March 5, 2018).
Although the expungement statute does not specifically mention PCR records, the intent behind the statute is to allow the petitioner to return to his or her former state without stigma so PCR records can be expunged.
D.Z. v. State, No. 32A05-1708-JV-1907, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 22, 2018).
Because the school official and police officer employed by the school acted in concert in obtaining incriminating statements from the student, and both were aware of the probability of criminal charges, the student should have been advised of his Miranda rights.
Robinson v. State, No. 18S-CR-33, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Feb. 23, 2018).
The sentence imposed by the trial court, including the habitual substance offender enhancement, is not inappropriate under Appellate Rule 7(B) and does not warrant appellate revision.