Ind. Code § 9-30-10-4(e), requiring the BMV to use the dates of the offenses rather than the dates of the judgments in determining a person’s status as a HTV, is a procedural amendment which does not violate the ex post facto clauses of the Indiana and United States Constitutions.
Hilligoss v. State, No. 34A02-1506-CR-529, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. Nov. 18, 2015).
Failing to advise defendant of constitutional rights before accepting his admission to violating probation is a fundamental violation of due process, requiring remand for new revocation hearing. Extensions of probation for previous violations exceeded one additional year in violation of I.C. § 35-38-2-3(h)(2).
Causey v. State, No. 49A02-1503-CR-185, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. Nov. 20, 2015).
Telling police officers, “If you come any closer I’ll shoot,” was conditional and aimed at officers’ future, not past, conduct; it therefore did not threaten retaliation for their prior lawful act of responding to a domestic-disturbance report, and could not support intimidation conviction.
Jackson v. State, No. 34A02-1505-CR-453, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. Nov. 23, 2015).
Court could not impose maximum sentence based solely on defendant’s conduct unrelated to the circumstances of the crime; sentencing statement was therefore inadequate and required resentencing.
Patchett v. Lee, No. 29D01-1305-CT-4116, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 19, 2015).
Evidence of payments made by the Healthy Indiana Plan (“HIP”) to reimburse plaintiff’s medical providers was inadmissible.