Habitual offender enhancement of a drug dealing offense requires that only one prior have also been a dealing offense, as the offense being sentenced for counts as one of the “two or more unrelated dealing convictions.”
Mork v. State, No. 49A02-0901-CR-26, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 28, 2009)
Defendant was no longer entitled to Criminal Rule 4(B) trial within 70 days when court released him on his own recognizance, while he was imprisoned in Department of Corrections serving a sentence on an unrelated offense.
Gerber v. State, No. 02A03-0902-CR-73, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 28, 2009)
Gerber v. State (Ind. Ct. App., May, J.) – Expungement statute does not require petitioner to wait until limitations period for dismissed charge has run, and trial judge erred in summarily dismissing expungement petition on that basis; on remand, prosecutor is not authorized to participate due to failure to have filed a notice of opposition.
Shivley v. State, No. 12A02-0903-CR-235, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 2, 2009)
In determining indigency for the purpose of court-appointed counsel, trial courts should consider defendant’s actual income as of the time of the hearings and his fixed monetary obligations, including his obligations to his family.
Weatherspoon v. State, No. 45A03-0809-CR-466, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 2, 2009)
Because Jury Rule 20(a)(8) makes a clear distinction between discussions and deliberations, and because there is no evidence that the alternates participated in deliberations, trial court properly instructed jury that alternates were permitted to discuss the evidence during recesses from trial, but not deliberations.