Protective orders can’t be reissued, renewed, or extended “ad infinitum based solely upon evidence related to the protective order’s initial issuance,” the petitioner “bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a new protective order or extension of an existing order is required.”
M. Barnes
Adcock v. State, No. 47A01-1407-PC-283, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 8, 2014).
Appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to raise insufficiency of the evidence for defendant’s sex crime convictions.
Weedman v. State, No. 90A04-1311-CR-549, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 26, 2014).
It was error to admit evidence of defendant’s withdrawal of his insanity defense, including testimony of the experts.
Huntington Nat’l Bank v. Car-X Assoc. Corp., No. 64A04-1405-MF-227, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 3, 2014).
When the employee that typically received notice was on maternity leave, in light of the short length of the delay, the security interest of Defendant, the amount at issue, the absence of evidence of prejudice to Plaintiff by the delay, and the severity of the sanction of default judgment, Defendant’s failure to respond to complaint constituted excusable neglect under T.R. 60(B)(1).
Gallien v. State, No. 22A01-1402-PC-50, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 21, 2014).
Two burglaries committed one after the other, four miles apart, were a single episode of criminal conduct subject to the cap on consecutive sentencing, and appellate counsel’s assistance was ineffective for failure to raise the issue as a sentencing error.