Because inmate’s claims were neither legally nor factually frivolous, trial court erred in dismissing his complaint under the Frivolous Claim Law.
Breaston v. State, No. 20S04-0810-CR-561, __N.E.2d __ (Ind., June 16, 2009)
Rule that habitual offender portions of sentences cannot be consecutive applies even when mandatory consecutivity statute applies.
Farris v. State, No. 02S03-0904-PC-181, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., June 17, 2009)
Consecutive habitual offender sentences are not authorized when related charges are tried in separate causes.
Bailey v. State, No. 49S02-0812-CR-00630, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., June 18, 2009)
Disorderly conduct’s “tumultuous conduct” may occur “when the aggressor appears well on his way to inflicting serious bodily injury but relents in the face of superior force or creative resistance.”
Mathews v. State, No. 01A02-0901-CR-44, __N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 18, 2009)
When probationer in open court was informed of date for revocation fact-finding hearing, and would have learned of the rescheduling of the hearing had she appeared on the original date scheduled, she could be tried in absentia when she did not appear at the rescheduled hearing.