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.
M. May
Marshall v. State, No. 64A05-1710-CR-2368, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 20, 2018).
Because the arresting officer could only testify that the defendant’s vehicle “was going over the posted speed limit”, he did not have specific articulable facts to support his initiation of a traffic stop, and therefore it violated defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights.
Wilson v. State, No. 49A04-1706-CR-1201, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., March 22, 2018).
When, without probable cause, police officers approached defendant at gunpoint and handcuffed him, and defendant remained handcuffed and guarded by one or the other officer while two searches of his vehicle were conducted, the officers’ actions exceeded the scope of an investigatory stop and became an arrest without probable cause.
Hogan v. State, No. 71A05-1702-CR-278, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., March 5, 2018).
In order to place a defendant in Purposeful Incarceration, the trial court must state in the Abstract of Judgment that, after successful completion of an appropriate therapeutic program, the court will consider a petition to modify defendant’s sentence.
In re: Petition for Expungement of the Conviction Records of B.S., No. 02A05-1710-XP-2262, __ N.E.3d __(Ind. Ct. App., March 5, 2018).
Although the expungement statute does not specifically mention PCR records, the intent behind the statute is to allow the petitioner to return to his or her former state without stigma so PCR records can be expunged.