• Skip to main content
  • Skip to footer
  • Categories
    • Civil
    • Criminal
    • Juvenile
  • Courts
    • Supreme
    • Appeals
    • Tax
    • SCOTUS
    • 7th Circuit
  • Judges

Case Clips

Published by the Indiana Office of Court Services

J. Sharpnack

State v. C.K., No. 49A02-1607-JV-1506, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 28, 2017).

March 7, 2017 Filed Under: Juvenile Tagged With: Appeals, J. Sharpnack

A juvenile court must waive jurisdiction to adult court if a felony conviction or nontraffic misdemeanor is imposed at any time before the State files its motion for waiver.

Shepard v. State, No. 84A01-1606-CR-1309, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 30, 2017).

January 31, 2017 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, J. Sharpnack

Community corrections programs may be managed by counties as well as the Department of Correction, and the trial court properly adopted the program’s disciplinary decision to revoke defendant’s good time credit in the sentencing order.

Pugh v. State, No. 49A02-1506-CR-482, __N.E.3D__ (Ind. Ct. App., May 10, 2016).

May 16, 2016 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, J. Sharpnack

Single larceny rule does not apply where robbery of husband, wife and daughter were distinct transactions; and continuous crime doctrine only applies where defendant has been charged multiple times with the same continuous offense.

J.B. v. State, No. 49A02-1409-JV-688, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., April 23, 2005).

April 23, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, J. Sharpnack

Police officer’s temporary detention of juvenile on sidewalk to investigate whether item juvenile had discarded was a handgun was a reasonable action under the totality of the circumstances and did not violate the Indiana Constitution’s search protection in Article 1, Section 11.

Sandleben v. State, No. 82A01-1407-CR-284 (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 17, 2015).

March 19, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, J. Sharpnack

Evidence defendant, “a complete stranger,” followed a girl closely in a store and took video with a small camera twice in nine months, making the girl “nervous and scared,” sufficed for a conviction of stalking; rejects claim that the taking of video was a constitutionally protected expressive activity.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Go to page 2
  • Go to page 3
  • Go to page 4
  • Go to page 5
  • Go to page 6
  • Go to Next Page »

Footer

About

Case Clips is a weekly publication of the Indiana Office of Court Services featuring appellate opinions curated by IOCS staff for Indiana judges.

Subscribe
  • Flickr
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Archive

Copyright © 2025 · Indiana Office of Court Services · courts.in.gov/iocs