Petitioner could not supplement his expungement petition to expunge the records from a case that was ineligible for expungement at the time that the petition was filed.
Appeals
Adkins v. State, No. 25A-PC-438, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 3, 2025).
Indiana Post-Conviction Rule 1(10) limits a court’s authority to resentence a defendant for the same offense after post-conviction relief. It neither curtails the State’s authority to file a new charge based on new evidence nor restricts the sentencing court from applying the proper statutory range to that conviction.
Lanier v. State, No. 25A-CR-769, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 3, 2025).
Under the Indiana Constitution, the question of whether an alleged mistake of law is reasonable under Article 1, Section 11, requires a determination of whether the alleged mistake of the law is reasonable under Litchfield.
In re E.K., No. 25A-JC-703, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 16, 2025).
The Court could not take judicial notice of substantive controversial facts and rely on those facts in orders issued by a court in a non-adversarial proceeding where many typical due process protections are not observed.
Brown v. Charles Sturdevant Post of the American Legion Post #46, No. 25A-PL-513, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 30, 2025).
The ten-year durational period for a successful claim of adverse possession does not require one legal owner during that time period.