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.
Appeals
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.
Mitchell v. State, No. 25A-CR-1322, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 6, 2025).
The plain language of Ind. Code § 35-38-2-1.8 does not grant, or even address, the trial court’s authority to modify the conditions of probation upon a defendant’s motion.