Tax sale notices sent by certified mail to homeowners satisfied due process and Indiana law; the question is not whether the homeowners actually received the notice, but whether the notices were sent “as one desirous of actually informing” the homeowners.
M. Massa
Miller v. Patel, No. 22S-CT-371, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 29, 2023).
Convictions entered after a guilty plea have the same preclusive effect in subsequent litigation as those entered after jury or court verdicts.
In re Adoption of S.L., No. 23S-AD-00158, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 20, 2023).
The court had no appellate jurisdiction because the trial court’s order was not a final judgment; it neither disposed of all claims for all parties, nor stated there was no just reason for delay.
Leshore v. State, No. 23S-CR-51, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Feb. 28, 2023).
When confronted with a petition under Post-Conviction Rule 2, seeking dispensation from otherwise firm deadlines and their decisive consequences, judges must ask, “was it [Petitioner’s] fault?” And if not, “did [Petitioner] act quickly enough thereafter?” Trial courts should take these questions up in sequence, though a negative answer to either one can be enough to bar relief.
Carmack v. State, No. 21S-LW-00471, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jan. 12, 2023).
Sudden heat is characterized as anger, rage, resentment, or terror sufficient to obscure the reason of an ordinary person, preventing deliberation and premeditation, excluding malice, and rendering a person incapable of cool reflection. Here, the State carried its evidentiary burden in negating the mitigating factor and voluntary manslaughter requirement of “sudden heat,” and Defendant’s murder conviction and LWOP sentence.