• Skip to main content
  • Skip to footer
  • Categories
    • Civil
    • Criminal
    • Juvenile
  • Courts
    • Supreme
    • Appeals
    • Tax
    • SCOTUS
    • 7th Circuit
  • Judges

Case Clips

Published by the Indiana Office of Court Services

Appeals

Sparks v. State, No. 49A02-1207-CR-593, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 26, 2013).

February 28, 2013 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Robb

When probationer heard judge say judge was inclined to impose a four year sentence if probationer admitted the violation and probationer then admitted, court’s imposition of a five year sentence without a hearing on the violation was fundamental error.

Turner v. Turner, No. 85A02-1208-DR-704,___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 28, 2013).

February 28, 2013 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, R. Pyle

The amended child support statute, Ind. Code § 31-16-6-6, trumps language in a dissolution decree providing that father was obligated to pay child support until son reached the age of twenty-one.

Carrillo v. State, No. 49A02-1112-PC-1209, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 18, 2013).

February 22, 2013 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, T. Crone

Suggests the trial court judge may play a role in having defense counsel advise defendant of the immigration consequences of a guilty plea, in holding that it was not ineffective assistance in 2006 for counsel to fail to determine whether defendant was not a citizen.

Carrillo v. State, No. 49A05-1108-PC-437, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 18, 2013).

February 22, 2013 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, T. Crone

Defendant’s relationships with family and length of presence in the United States were sufficient to establish he might not have accepted a guilty plea bargain had he been advised of the immigration consequences of the plea.

Cutler v. State, No. 71A05-1206-CR-339, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 21, 2013).

February 22, 2013 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, R. Shepard

“[T]he State may impeach a testifying defendant by using a prior custodial statement that was indeed recorded but was not ‘available at trial’ as required by Evidence Rule 617 because neither defense counsel nor the prosecutor knew of its existence until trial was under way.”

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 286
  • Go to page 287
  • Go to page 288
  • Go to page 289
  • Go to page 290
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 406
  • Go to Next Page »

Footer

About

Case Clips is a weekly publication of the Indiana Office of Court Services featuring appellate opinions curated by IOCS staff for Indiana judges.

Subscribe
  • Flickr
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Archive

Copyright © 2026 · Indiana Office of Court Services · courts.in.gov/iocs