Upon a request for self-representation, the defendant should be made aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation, so that the record will establish a knowing and intelligent decision.
Appeals
Nick’s Packing Svcs., Inc. v. Chaney, No. 21A-SC-820, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 27, 2021).
Company who removed resident’s possessions during an eviction was a bailee of a mutual benefit bailment and had a duty to exercise ordinary care with resident’s possessions.
Lloyd v. Kuznar, No. 21A-CT-1338, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 28, 2021).
Trial court properly dismissed plaintiff’s claims because she failed to apprise the court of her new address, but the court should have set aside the default judgment on defendant’s counterclaim when the method of service on plaintiff was “nothing more than a mere gesture” because the defendant knew that the address for plaintiff was incorrect.
Family Dental Care, P.C. v. Mousa, No. 21A-PL-670, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Dec. 29, 2021).
Liquidated damages and attorney fees under the Wage Payment Statute were not available to plaintiff because she did not file a wage payment claim with the Department of Labor, even though the claim exceeded the $6,000 threshold.
Guthery v. State, No. 21A-CR-711, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 22, 2021).
The felony suspendability statute is not a progressive penalty statute, as it does not elevate the seriousness of an offense and its corresponding penalty due to a previous conviction. Rather, it merely limits the discretion of the trial court to order a sentence to be suspended, all within the existing sentencing range for the offense. To that end, the felony suspendability statute is not a sentencing enhancement statute to which double-enhancement analysis applies.