Where parents executed consents for one person to adopt their children, then (without withdrawing the first consents) executed subsequent consents for two other people to adopt their children, neither Indiana’s adoption statutes nor public policy prohibits the subsequent consents.
Baker v. Taylor, No. 18A04-0812-CV-746, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 8, 2009)
Where an account is established by an attorney-in-fact using entirely the funds of a principal, the attorney-in-fact is named joint owner or POD beneficiary, and the principal has no direct involvement in, or even awareness of, the creation of the account, the survivor cannot be presumed the owner of the accounts.
Peoples v. State, No. 79A02-0812-CR-1141, __ N.E.2d __ (Inc. Ct. App., Aug. 28, 2009)
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.