Trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to expunge drug-dealing convictions because petitioner’s job includes going into businesses and the nature of the convictions might be relevant to businesses deciding whether to exclude petitioner from their premises.
M. May
Morgan v. State, No. 84A01-1703-CR-587, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 1, 2017).
Ind. Code 35-38-2.6-5, which controls the community corrections program, does not impermissibly delegate judicial authority to the community corrections director; a hearing is required before direct placement in community corrections is revoked.
Edmonds v. State, No. 49A05-1703-CR-400, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 26, 2017).
Because resisting law enforcement and leaving the scene of an accident are conduct-based crimes rather than result-based crimes, defendant may be convicted of only one count for each
Moell v. Moell, No. 45A05-1704-DR-784, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 13, 2017).
Trial court did not have authority to allow the 17-year-old child of the parties to make his own decisions regarding parenting time and related issues.
P.S. v. T.W., No. 32A01-1610-PO-2426, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 20, 2017).
Trial court was not required to apprise defendant of all possible penalties for violating the protective order and did not violate his due process by requiring GPS monitoring.