Local rules authorizing contempt to enforce “personal order of garnishment,” an order to debtor to pay a money judgment in installments, violates Indiana Constitution; “personal orders of garnishment” may be used to compel debtor to apply property creditor shows is not exempt from execution; creditor may not use successive proceedings supplemental without showing new facts giving rise to belief the judgment debtor has property or income to satisfy the judgment.
Kistler v. State, No. 35A04-1004-PC-245, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 15, 2010)
Fact that maximum potential sentence of 88 years included 30 years for an invalid habitual offender allegation, which defense counsel failed to observe, did not entitle defendant to relief from his bargained sentence of 28 years, as defendant failed to show that a reasonable defendant would have refused to plead guilty had he known the correct maximum was 58 years.
Reeves v. State, No. 77A04-1005-CR-292, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 16, 2010)
Use of the crime concealment exception to the statute of limitations requires the State to allege in its charge facts which would establish concealment.
Bunch v. State, No. 49A04-1002-CR-120, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 17, 2010)
Successive confinement of the victim in different places in her home during a burglary/robbery was a single episode of confinement, so that Indiana Double Jeopardy prohibited separate confinement convictions for the confinements in different rooms.
K. L. v. M. H., No. 41A01-1003-JP-145, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 15, 2010)
Trial court did not err in appointing parenting time coordinator sua sponte when parties did not object and record was undisputed parents could not cooperate enough to independently implement parenting time schedule.