The dissolution court “may issue an order providing additional terms to the extent the Settlement Agreement and Private Agreement are silent,” instead of modifying the terms of the Settlement Agreement to provide relief under TR 60(B).
E. Brown
In re the Paternity of R.M., No. 45A04-1001-JP-14, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 30, 2010)
The defense of laches can apply in paternity actions.
Norwood v. State, No. 49A04-1004-CR-212, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 15, 2010)
Subsequent protective order superseded initial ex parte protective order, so when regular protective order had expired protective order subject could not be guilty of invasion of privacy based on the ex parte order.
Kistler v. State, No. 35A04-1004-PC-245, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 15, 2010)
Fact that maximum potential sentence of 88 years included 30 years for an invalid habitual offender allegation, which defense counsel failed to observe, did not entitle defendant to relief from his bargained sentence of 28 years, as defendant failed to show that a reasonable defendant would have refused to plead guilty had he known the correct maximum was 58 years.
Thomas v. State, No. 49A02-1002-CR-105, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 8, 2010)
Vacates invasion of privacy conviction for protection order subject’s “stop calling me, fagot [sic]” remark to protected person during a court hearing, on basis direct contempt was “more appropriate” remedy.