Under Ind. Code § 35-33-9-5(c) and App. R. 18, defendants cannot earn credit time while released on appeal bond, regardless of allegedly onerous nature of bond conditions; instead, reasonableness of conditions must be challenged immediately by motion to reconsider or appeal under App. R. 18.
E. Najam
Taylor v. Taylor, No. 49A04-1502-DR-58, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 13, 2015).
“[A]fter a relocation notice is filed, if a party seeks a modification of an existing child support order that party must also file a petition to modify child support.”
Grundy v. State, No. 49A02-1409-CR-665, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. June 30, 2015).
Revised criminal code’s habitual-offender provision does not apply retroactively to offense committed before July 1, 2014 effective date.
Jackson v. State, No. 48A02-1409-CR-670, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., June 4, 2015).
(1) Because habitual-offender predicate offenses were not factually contested, trial judge who had prosecuted the predicate offenses was not required to recuse. (2) A “pattern of racketeering activity” under Indiana’s corrupt business influence statute, like similar federal RICO statute, requires proof that the predicate offenses “amount to or pose a threat of continued criminal activity.”
Brewer v. State, No. 82A05-1410-CR-458, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., June 4, 2015).
Under Indiana’s statutory double jeopardy protections, defendant’s Kentucky convictions for receiving stolen property (a car) and fleeing/evading police (1) barred subsequent prosecution for having stolen the car in Indiana, but (2) did not bar prosecution for resisting law enforcement in Indiana for evading police in Evansville before crossing the border in Kentucky.