The amended motion to correct error was a repetitive motion and so the filing of the amended motion did not change the date for filing the notice of appeal.
Minnick v. State, No. 47A05-1108-CR-448,___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., April 3, 2012).
Under the circumstances of the case, the 25 year delay in sentencing did not violate defendant’s right to speedy sentencing.
Webster v. Walgreen, Co. No. 55A01-1110-CT-442, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., April 4, 2012).
“’[M]ailing’ for purposes of the Indiana Trial Rules requires the sender to affix sufficient postage.”
Gagan v. Yast, No. 45A05-1107-CT-377, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., April 5, 2012).
Attorney’s alleged defamatory statements made against his former clients were protected on the grounds of qualified privilege.
Ceaser v. State, No. 49A02-1106-CR-580, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 26, 2012).
When a parent is asserting parental privilege, evidence of a prior conviction for battering the child at issue in a manner similar to the circumstance at issue is admissible as that evidence goes directly to the reasonableness of the force used and the reasonableness of that parent’s belief regarding the force used.