When a defendant in the probation context wants to waive counsel, the record must show that the probationer was made aware of the nature, extent, and importance of the right to counsel as well as the necessary consequences of waiving such a right.
P. Felix
Billingsley v. State, No. 25A-CR-1654, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 30, 2026).
Criminal Rule 4.1(A)(4)’s mandate on trial courts to designate whether and why any delay is excluded from the time period imposes a corresponding duty on the parties to timely object, with a specifically stated ground, to the trial court’s designation of a delay under that Rule in order to preserve appellate review.
Stokes v. State, No. 25A-CR-1740, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 30, 2026).
The period of time allowed for testing under Indiana Code section 9-30-6-2 is “within three (3) hours after the law enforcement officer had probable cause to believe the person committed an offense under IC 9-30-5. Although the statute references probable cause, the State must prove that the chemical test was performed within three hours of the defendant’s last illegal operation of the vehicle.
In re Adoption of Au.S., No. 25A-AD-1046, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 19, 2025).
When a jurisdictional priority problem arises in a proceeding concerning custody of a child, that jurisdictional priority problem presumptively qualifies as a potential ground for permissive intervention under TR 24(B)(2). Under these circumstances, permissive intervention should only be denied if the trial court finds that (1) the first-to-file petitioner has relinquished their interest in pursuing custody of the child, or (2) intervention is unnecessary because the child’s placement with the second-to-file petitioner is clearly in the child’s best interests. If neither finding is supported by the record, the circumstances are sufficiently extraordinary and unusual to permit intervention under TR 24(B)(2).
Cingel v. Ferreri, No. 25A-DC-500, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 19, 2025).
Litigant waived her appellate claims by citing nonexistent legal authorities and to real legal authorities that have nothing to do with the propositions they purport to support.