Indiana statute requires sentencing judge to advise defendant of his earliest release date and maximum possible release date, and although such failure was harmless error in this case, the facts of another case might not lead to the same harmless error result.
In re F.S., No. 13A01-1505-JM-363, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 12, 2016).
DCS is not required to conduct an interview with a child as part of its assessment, but the trial court may issue such an order if the parent does not consent and DCS shows good cause on the record supporting its request for an interview.
Schuck v. State, No. 73A01-1507-CR-981, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 4, 2016).
Investigatory costs should be reimbursed because investigation was necessary even though defendant pleaded guilty.
Barany v. State, No. 17A04-1510-CR-1734, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 4, 2016).
Trial court properly denied defendant’s request for return of the firearm used to commit murder; defendant cannot profit from sale of murder weapon.
Belork v. Latimer, No. 75A04-1503-MI-100, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 5, 2016).
“[A]djoining parcel owners can treat a fence not initially constructed on the true property line between their parcels as a partition fence, and in that circumstance the fence will be considered a partition fence for purposes of the maintenance and repair requirements and cost-sharing provisions of the partition fence statute.”