Trial courts are in the best position to assess the competency of criminal defendants and the knowingness and intelligence of waivers of the right to counsel, and that determination will only be reversed if it was clearly erroneous.
N. Vaidik
In re J.B., No. 48S02-1604-MI-183, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 8, 2016).
On rehearing, reverses that part of the CHINS court’s order that discharged the parties and terminated the CHINS case and remands this case for further proceedings consistent with the CHINS statutes, including any appropriate services for Mother.
Henriquez v. State, No. 20A04-1510-CR-1841, __N.E.3d__ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 9, 2016).
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.
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.