When juvenile defendant’s attorney vigorously argued in favor of placing him on probation and submitted a plan for the juvenile court’s review, the court’s failure to specifically ask juvenile defendant if he wanted to make a statement was not a blatant violation of basic principles, did not pose a potential of substantial harm, and did not deprive him of fundamental due process. However, courts are strongly encouraged to afford juvenile delinquents the opportunity to address the court before final disposition.
C. Darden
Wright v. State, No. 05A02-1610-CR-2397, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 24, 2018).
Defendant’s felony child molesting conviction reversed because his incriminating statements to arresting officers flowed from an unconstitutional search and seizure of his computers and were the fruit of the poisonous tree.
Williams v. State, No. 29A02-1506-CR-528, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., March 10, 2016).
Defendant entered an “open plea,” despite plea agreement’s mistaken recitation that it was not, because trial court retained discretion over placement of the sentence. Defendant therefore did not waive right to appeal sentence.
Talley v. State, No. 45A05-1507-PC-1005, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 8, 2016).
Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to seek bifurcation of SVF firearm possession charge from resisting law enforcement (RLE) charges; trial court would not have been obligated to grant bifurcation because evidence of prior conviction was relevant to RLE charge and could also have been used to strategic advantage in defending SVF charge.
Akins v. State, No. 49A02-1412-CR-869, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., July 31, 2015).
Restitution award was abuse of discretion; there was no evidence that the injury for which restitution was sought was caused by, or even connected with, the defendant.