Greer v. State’s holding, that a probationer who proceeds pro se and admits the petition need not be advised of the “pitfalls of self-representation,” applies despite decision in Hopper v. State requiring guilty plea advice of dangers of proceeding pro se and “that an attorney is usually more experienced in plea negotiations and better able to identify and evaluate any potential defenses and evidentiary or procedural problems in the prosecution’s case.”
Appeals
Cartwright v. State, No. 82A01-1005-CR-214, __ N.E.2D __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 22, 2011)
Finds the State’s four race-neutral reasons for peremptory challenge to only African-American venireperson to have been pretextual because the trial judge made no finding which of the four reasons it relied on to reject the Batson challenge and because the State failed to “develop anything beyond the most superficial of records regarding its reasons.”
Cundiff v. State, No. 31A05-1008-CR-607, __ N.E.2D __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 23, 2011)
Defendant incarcerated on other charges but released on recognizance on the charges at issue was not eligible for the Criminal Rule 4(B) speedy trial remedy.
Foster v. State, No. 02A03-1010-CR-596, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 10, 2011)
Police had probable cause to believe contraband was in the residence, but a warrantless search violated the Indiana Constitution when “[t]wenty-one days had elapsed since the controlled buy, and there [wa]s no evidence that exigent circumstances called for an immediate arrest.”
Gaby v. State, No. 79A02-1006-CR-804, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 7, 2011)
After alleged victim testified she remembered that defendant’s vaginal molestation did not include touching her in other ways, it was error to allow her pretrial statement to the contrary into evidence to “refresh” her recollection.