“Breaking” element of burglary was satisfied when defendant gained entry to an apartment by pushing aside a person standing near the entry, then immediately subduing the occupant by force.
M. May
Dunn v. State, No. 49A02-1407-CR-470, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., May 26, 2015).
Court abused its discretion by granting State’s motion to withdraw a plea agreement because the victim had not been notified; victim-notice error was invited by State’s sworn assertion in connection with the plea agreement that victim had been notified.
Bowman v. State, No. 21A04-1404-CR-180, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., May 26, 2015).
Without lab test, field test, or corroborating circumstantial evidence, testimony that the product of a controlled buy “looked like” heroin was insufficient to prove dealing in a narcotic drug within 1,000 feet of a school.
Carr v. State, No. 45A04-1409-CR-456, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 12, 2015).
Savings statute for the revised penal code prohibited application of the revised sentence modification statute, which does not require prosecutorial consent to a modification petition, to a petition to modify for a crime committed and sentenced prior to the July 1, 2014 effective date of the modification statute’s revision.
Tiplick v. State, No. 49A04-1312-CR-617, __ N.E.3d__ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 27, 2015).
The dealing in a synthetic drug and possession of a synthetic drug offenses, as in effect in 2012, are unconstitutionally vague.