Ind. Code § 35-38-1-1(b) requires trial courts to advise a defendant of the earliest and latest possible release dates, but trial courts are not equipped to make this specific determination. Defendant was not harmed by the trial court’s failure to estimate the dates.
J. Baker
Valdez v. State, 18A02-1509-CR-1514, __N.E.3d__ (Ind. Ct. App., July 22, 2016).
Deputy Prosecutor admonished for insinuating that defense counsel improperly influenced witness testimony.
Escamilla v. Shiel Sexton Co., No. 54A01-1506-CT-602, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App, July 13, 2016). (dissent on rehearing)
Judge Baker dissents the denial of petition for rehearing; knowledge of a party’s immigration status alone sheds no meaningful light on the question of whether that party will one day face deportation.
Anonymous M.D. v Lockridge, No. 39A01-1509-CT-1498, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 29, 2016).
Derivative medical malpractice claim of decedent’s children was not time-barred because the children were under the age of six at the time of the alleged negligence and under the age of eight at the time of the filing of the complaint.
Arion v. State, No. 08A02-1508-CR-1278, __N.E.3d__ (Ind. Ct. App., June 22, 2016).
Trial courts have an affirmative duty to insure a speedy trial.