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.
M. May
Person v. State, No. 49A02-1708-CR-1737, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 7, 2018).
Trial court could not order costs of victim’s public transportation and for her pain and suffering as part of defendant’s restitution.
Orange v. Ind. Bureau of Motor Vehicles, No. 29A02-1707-MI-1549, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 31, 2018).
Ind. Code § 9-30-16-3 does not require trial courts to hold a hearing prior to making a decision on a petition for specialized driving privileges.
McMiller v. State, No. 49A02-1706-CR-1192, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., December 18, 2017).
Although the defendant deprived the restaurant of the value of the food and drink consumed when he could not pay the bill, the conviction was reversed because the state failed to prove that he had the requisite intent to commit theft.
Fearman v. State, No. 49A04-1704-CR-802, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 14, 2017).
Defendant’s multiple acts of contemptuous behavior constitute a single contemptuous episode, and his sentence must be reduced to a six-month sentence because that is the maximum penalty allowed without a jury trial.