Trial court acted within its discretion when it accepted a guilty plea but explained it would not be accepted until review of the PSI; then after review of the PSI determined the plea agreement was unacceptable and allowed the defendant to revoke the guilty plea before trial.
C. Bradford
Edwards v. State, No. 20A-CR-42, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., April 30, 2020).
When there is no nexus between the illegal possession and another crime, courts must look to the time of acquisition to determine whether multiple possessions constitute a single episode of criminal conduct.
Butler v. State, No. 19A-MI-5, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 27, 2019).
The trial court properly ordered the forfeiture of defendant’s car because the 2018 amendments to Indiana’s civil-forfeiture scheme were procedural in nature and do not constitute an ex post facto law; defendant failed to establish that the seizure of the car was in any way improper.
Risinger v. State, No. 19A-CR-281, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 9, 2019).
Defendant’s statement, “I’m done talking,” was an unequivocal invocation of his right to remain silent pursuant to Miranda, and the detectives’ continuation of questioning thereafter was a failure to honor that right.
Strickholm v. Anonymous Nurse Practitioner, No. 19A-MI-696, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 21, 2019).
It is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether an appointment to check blood pressure and review of those results was considered medical care to delay the statute of limitations.