If a defendant wishes to challenge their guilty plea, they cannot do so through a direct appeal; the issue of whether a defendant’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary should instead be pursued by filing a petition for post-conviction relief.
D. Molter
M.H. v. State, No. 22S-JV-251, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., April 19, 2023).
When a decision implicates a new jurisdictional rule, as in K.C.G. v. State, courts are to apply the principle of non-retroactivity, rather than vacate a final judgment for voidness, unless the jurisdictional error compromised the reliability or fairness of the proceedings.
Means v. State, No. 23S-CR-26, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Feb. 1, 2023).
After the Court of Appeals accepts a discretionary interlocutory appeal, it may later dismiss the appeal on non-jurisdictional grounds, although its general reluctance to do so is appropriate. In addition, orders in limine are eligible for discretionary interlocutory review.
Doroszko v. State, No. 23S-CR-25, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Feb. 1, 2023).
Pursuant to TR 47(D), trial courts must permit parties or their counsel to question prospective jurors directly. The trial court may also examine the jurors. As part of its own examination, the court may, but does not have to, include questions the parties submit to the court in writing. If the court elects to examine the prospective jurors, it is within its discretion to decide whether its examination or the parties’ examination will occur first, but whenever the trial court examines the prospective jurors, it must allow the parties an opportunity to supplement the court’s inquiry by posing their own additional questions directly to the prospective jurors.
Mastellone v. Young Men’s Christian Assoc. of Greater Indianapolis, No. 21A-CT-1720, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 23, 2022).
After entering judgment, pursuant to Trial Rule 59, a trial court cannot set aside the judgment without stating specific reasons.