A PCR court has the authority to accept agreements that modify the sentence in the underlying criminal case, whether that judge is an elected judge, a judge pro tempore, or a special judge. Once accepted, the State is bound by the terms of that agreement
M. May
Schmitt v. State, No. 83A04-1711-CR-2720, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 10, 2018
Courts are no longer statutorily required to have prosecutorial consent to modify a sentence, but if it makes a preliminary determination that it would grant a petition to modify it should request documentation from the DOC and hold a hearing on the petition.
Seo v. State, No. 29A05-1710-CR-2466, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 21, 2018).
Compelling defendant to unlock her iPhone, under the threat of contempt and imprisonment, is constitutionally prohibited by the Fifth Amendment because revealing or using the passcode to do so is a testimonial act. The State must describe with reasonable particularity the information it seeks to compel defendant to produce and why.
ONB Ins. Group, Inc. v. Estate of Mengel, No. 40A01-1707-CT-1513, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 25, 2018).
This case uses the Goodwin/Rogers analysis for a negligence case that does not involve premise liability with third-party acts. When the broad type of plaintiffs are motorists, the defendants are an insurance agency and its agent, and the type of harm as a multi-vehicle collision caused by faulty brakes on a large tractor-trailer, defendants owe no common law duty to plaintiffs
State v. Lindauer, No. 87A05-1709-CR-2137, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 20, 2018).
Criminal Rule 4(C) was created to move cases along and not to create a mechanism to avoid trial. A defendant cannot habitually move to reset the preliminary hearing at which the trial date was to be set and then claim that his right to trial within a year was violated.