Indiana Post-Conviction Rule 1(10) limits a court’s authority to resentence a defendant for the same offense after post-conviction relief. It neither curtails the State’s authority to file a new charge based on new evidence nor restricts the sentencing court from applying the proper statutory range to that conviction.
L. Weissmann
Heitz v. State, No. 24A-CR-802, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 6, 2025).
When a trial court’s local practice conflicts with Criminal Rule 4(C), the local practice is invalid, and delays arising from noncompliance with such practices cannot be charged to defendants.
Schoeff v. State, No. 23A-CR-02163, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 26, 2024).
While the Richardson actual-evidence test no longer applies to claims of substantive double jeopardy violations, it does apply to claims of procedural double jeopardy.
M.M. v. L.P., No. 23A-PO-2089, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 5, 2024).
The trial court was not required to transfer a pending protection order case to the special judge handling parties’ post-dissolution matters when the protection order did not relate to any pending post-dissolution proceedings and did not impact parenting time.
Andrew Nemeth Properties, LLC v. Panzica, No. 23A-PL-1383, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 17, 2024).
A pre-formation oral contract may establish an LLC’s initial membership. Plaintiff was entitled to a jury trial on his unjust enrichment claim under Article 1, Section 20 of the Indiana Constitution.