Defendant who was 52, lived with his mother, and presented no evidence of any spouse or children in the United States failed to establish the ineffective assistance harm element by showing “special circumstances” to support his contention he would not have pled guilty had defense counsel properly advised him of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea.
Appeals
Rogers v. State, No. 84A01-1104-CR-148, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 30, 2011).
Defendant in a sex offender registration prosecution waived any ex post facto objection to the registration offense’s application to him when he pled guilty to the offense pursuant to a plea agreement which conferred benefits on him.
Johnson v. State, No. 71A04-1103-CR-194, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 21, 2011).
Indiana probationer, placed in Michigan under Interstate Compact, could not avoid revocation by arguing his arrest and return for probation violation did not comply with Compact provision on probable cause hearing after retaking.
Norris v. Personal Finance, No. 27A04-1104-SC-183, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 21, 2011).
Parents of competent adults are not included in the list of persons having authority to accept service under T.R. 4.16; service is not adequate on the home of a competent adult’s parents if that adult does not live at that address.
Davis v. Shelter Ins. Companies, No. 02A05-1105-CT-256, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 21, 2011).
Adopts the following test to determine the availability of equitable estoppel as an affirmative defense against statute of limitations in insurance actions: “The first part of the test, drawing on the national case law, is to determine whether the insurer has engaged in any of the following: (1) a promise to settle; (2) discouraging the claimant from filing suit; (3) discouraging the claimant from obtaining counsel; or (4) otherwise egregious conduct. If one of those behaviors is present, then the court will engage in the second part of the test by looking at the totality of the circumstances surrounding the insurer’s actions. Equitable estoppel will be available to the claimant when the circumstances surrounding the insurer’s conduct have induced the claimant to delay timely action…and the claimant’s reliance on the insurer’s statements or actions was reasonable…” (Internal citations omitted.)