Two burglaries committed one after the other, four miles apart, were a single episode of criminal conduct subject to the cap on consecutive sentencing, and appellate counsel’s assistance was ineffective for failure to raise the issue as a sentencing error.
C. Bradford
Harris v. State, No. 02A03-1402-CR-73, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 21, 2014).
Exigent circumstances justified officers’ warrantless seizure of a handgun they saw defendant place inside an apartment front door as they approached, so that the seizure did not violate the Fourth Amendment or Indiana Constitution, Article I, § 11.
Gyamfi v. State, No. 30A01-1311-CR-487, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 4, 2014).
Applies prior holding that the “attenuation doctrine” of Fourth Amendment law does not apply under the Indiana Constitution; majority opinion concludes that the Fourth Amendment inevitable discovery doctrine does not apply under the Indiana Constitution, but concurring panel members conclude instead that inevitable discovery could apply under the Indiana Constitution but that the State failed to show an inevitable discovery.
Mallory v. State, No. 20A03-1403-MI-76, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 15, 2014)
Former statutory provision that victim’s statement “shall” be considered did not authorize court to refuse expungement when all petition requirements were met.
Ward v. State, No. 49A02-1401-CR-25, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 15, 2014).
Statements by belt whipping victim to medical personnel identifying defendant as attacker were not “testimonial,” so that Sixth Amendment Confrontation right did not apply to prevent personnel from testifying about victim’s statements.