“Because the trial court had established a duty to support the children in a court order issued prior to July 1, 2012 and the children were younger than twenty-one years of age, Mother was entitled to file her petition for post-educational expenses based on I.C. § 31-16-6-6(a) & (c).”
Appeals
Spalding v. State, No. 49A04-1210-CR-534, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 9, 2013).
Disagrees with prior Court of Appeals opinion and holds that, (1) when the subject of an Indiana criminal charge is being held in federal custody outside Indiana, (2) no detainer is filed against him on the Indiana charge, and (3) he is then brought into Indiana by federal authority, Criminal Rule 4 does not apply.
Oster v. State, No. 84A05-1208-CR-437, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 9, 2013).
Evidence of defendant’s possession of tools useful for theft but not used to break and enter, of the retail nature of the business premises broken into, and of the fact that the defendant had a residence he could use for shelter sufficed to prove his intent to commit theft in the premises he broke and entered.
Harris v. State, No. 39A05-1205-CR-239, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 13, 2013).
Indiana “actual evidence” double jeopardy test applies only to convictions, not to acquittals, mistrials, or combinations of the two. Statute of limitations applied to bar amendment adding a new charge following mistrial.
Dillon v. State, No. 27A05-1210-CR-542, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 14, 2013).
When nunc pro tunc order reinstating OWI conviction after its “inadvertent[] dismissal” by State was entered after defendant had committed his second OWI offense, the reinstated conviction could not serve as a basis for enhancing the second to a D felony.