Ind. Code § 35-38-1-1(b) requires trial courts to advise a defendant of the earliest and latest possible release dates, but trial courts are not equipped to make this specific determination. Defendant was not harmed by the trial court’s failure to estimate the dates.
N. Vaidik
May v. State, 35A04-1603-CR-673, __N.E.3d__ (Ind. Ct. App., July 29, 2016).
Because defendants are placed on parole OR probation, and defendant complied with the terms of parole, it was reasonable for defendant not to report to probation before his release from parole and the trial court abused its discretion in revoking probation.
In re Guardianship of Morris, No. No. 34A02-1510-GU-1809, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App, July 12, 2016).
The trial court should consider the effect of a power of attorney when determining if the appointment of a guardian is necessary.
In re J.B., No. 20A05-1510-JC-1612, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 8, 2016).
The juvenile court did not have jurisdiction to modify the custody agreement made by the paternity court after the CHINS case was terminated.
Doe #1 v. Ind. Dept. of Child Svcs., No. 49A02-1506-CT-682, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 26, 2016).
Under common law, DCS had a duty to protect the identity of a caller who reported children as being in need of service.