Failure to raise a common law double jeopardy claim, when apparent from the record that a defendant’s conviction and punishment for an enhancement of a crime was imposed for the very same behavior or harm as another crime for which the defendant has been convicted and punished, constitutes ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, even if appellate counsel raised a different double jeopardy issue on appeal.
M. Robb
Scott v. State, No. 19A-CR-516, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 31, 2020).
Conduct by a defendant designed to procure a witness’s absence from trial is sufficient, if proven by a preponderance of the evidence, to forfeit his/her right to confrontation. In the context of obstruction of justice, coercion requires only that the defendant indicate, explicitly or implicitly, a consequence – not a particular kind of consequence, such as a positive or negative one.
State v. N.B., No. 19A-JV-1659, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 10, 2020).
A juvenile court has subject matter jurisdiction to entertain a delinquency petition and waive a defendant to adult criminal court but does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate a defendant over age twenty-one a delinquent child and enter a disposition.
In re Guardianship of Xitumel, No. 19A-GU-948, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 20, 2019).
Guardianship was necessary even though uncle held a foreign power of attorney. The trial court should have granted the petition for guardianship and included thorough special immigrant juvenile (SIJ) findings
Laboa v. State, No. 18A-CR-951, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 15, 2019).
When a meritorious PCR petition was filed by a pro se petitioner, and neither party moved for summary disposition, the post-conviction court should have either ordered the cause to be submitted by affidavit or held an evidentiary hearing.