A PCR court has the authority to accept agreements that modify the sentence in the underlying criminal case, whether that judge is an elected judge, a judge pro tempore, or a special judge. Once accepted, the State is bound by the terms of that agreement
Appeals
Schmitt v. State, No. 83A04-1711-CR-2720, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 10, 2018
Courts are no longer statutorily required to have prosecutorial consent to modify a sentence, but if it makes a preliminary determination that it would grant a petition to modify it should request documentation from the DOC and hold a hearing on the petition.
J.K. v. Ind. Dept. of Child Svcs., No. 18A-JT-529, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 7, 2018).
Admonishes DCS for its failure to afford litigants their due process rights and reminds the trial courts of their duty to ensure that litigants’ due process rights are not violated.
Morrison v. Vasquez, No. 18A-CT-376, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 28, 2018).
Ind. Code § 23-0.5-4-12’s provision that the address of a registered agent does not determine venue is not ineffective under T.R. 75(D).
Johnson v. Blue Chip Casino, LLC, No. 18A-SC-788, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 29 2018).
Plaintiff failed to prove that the presence of bed bugs in his hotel room more probably resulted from hotel’s negligence as opposed to another cause; plaintiff’s argument that res loquitur applied failed.