Trial court must resentence defendant who was sentenced to forty years imprisonment after entering a guilty plea to one count of felony child molesting when the correct statutory sentencing range was twenty to fifty years, not thirty to fifty years.
A.A. v. Eskenazi Health/Midtown CMHC, No. 49A02-1610-MH-2286, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 20, 2017).
In a mental health commitment, if the respondent is not present at the hearing, the trial court’s determination of whether it should waive the respondent’s presence must be made at the outset of the hearing using evidence establishing that the respondent’s presence would be injurious to his mental health or well-being.
P.S. v. T.W., No. 32A01-1610-PO-2426, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 20, 2017).
Trial court was not required to apprise defendant of all possible penalties for violating the protective order and did not violate his due process by requiring GPS monitoring.
Gresk v. Demetris, No. 49A02-1610-MI-2287, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 21, 2017).
Anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) statute does not apply to reports of child abuse or neglect made to Department of Child Services.
Miller v. State, No. 28S04-1707-CR-468, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., July 12, 2017).
The correct legal standard to apply in an attempted murder case is whether the defendant had a “specific intent to kill.”