Revision of a sentence under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) requires the appellant to demonstrate that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender; failure to address both prongs results in waiver of appropriateness review.
Appeals
Holsten v. Faur, No. 20A-CT-2072, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 8, 2021).
If medical malpractice plaintiff’s proposed complaint for the medical review panel does not encompass a particular theory of negligence, the trial court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over that theory of negligence.
Brown v. State, 20A-CR-2261, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 24, 2021).
Administrative punishment rendered by the Department of Correction does not preclude a subsequent criminal prosecution for the same conduct.
Koziski v. State, 20A-CR-1889, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 2, 2021).
Multiple convictions based on separate provisions under the child-molesting statute should be analyzed using the double jeopardy test set forth in Wadle v. State, 151 N.E.3d 227 (Ind. 2020) as opposed to Powell v. State, 151 N.E.3d 256 (Ind. 2020).
Atkins v. Crawford County Clerk’s Office, No. 20A-MI-2160, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 1, 2021).
Trial court improperly denied a motion to waive the filing fee when plaintiff filed a verified affidavit of indigency with documentation of her cash assets. If the trial court had any doubt about plaintiff’s indigency, the trial court could have waived the filing fee, and, upon a later discovery that the litigant has the means to pay, order reimbursement of the waived fee; or a trial court may hold a hearing to examine the litigant’s potential indigency.