[T]he State may challenge the legality of a criminal sentence by appeal without first filing a motion to correct erroneous sentence, and . . . such appeal need not be commenced within thirty days of the sentencing judgment.
Metro Health Professionals, Inc. v. Chrysler, LLC, No. 06A04-0809-CV-547, __ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., May 4, 2009)
Auto purchaser was entitled to “Lemon Law” relief after seller’s fourth unsuccessful repair attempt even though a fifth repair attempt apparently succeeded after the “Lemon Law” was invoked.
Upton v. State, No. 52A02-0812-CR-1112, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 23, 2009)
Application of “credit restricted felon†statute to offense committed before statute’s effective date violated ex post facto prohibition.
Wallace v. State, No. 49S02-0803-CR-138, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Apr. 30, 2009)
Application of the Sex Offender Registration Act to a person whose sex offense predated the Act violates the Indiana Constitution’s Ex Post Facto Clause.
Jensen v. State, No. 02S04-0803-CR-137, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Apr. 30, 2009)
The Indiana Ex Post Facto Clause was not violated by application of the 2006 sexually violent predator lifetime registration requirement to a person required to register as a sex offender for ten years under the law in effect when his sex offenses were committed.