A trial court errs when it grants the State’s motion for continuance, based the unavailability of laboratory testing results, under Criminal Rule 4(D), where the State fails to establish diligence.
P. Riley
Ind. Bureau of Motor Vehicles v. Douglass, No. 19A-MI-216, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 23, 2019).
BMV had the right to pursue a suspension of defendant’s driving privileges in Indiana even though he was a no longer a resident of Indiana.
State v. Fahringer, No. 18A-CR-2985, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 12, 2019).
The trial court’s certification of its suppression order for interlocutory appeal was an abuse of its discretion because the State’s request for certification was untimely under App. R. 14(B)(1)(a).
Davis v. State, No. 19A-CR-631, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 31, 2019).
Trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant’s request for an attorney made during the bench trial more than one year after affirming his request for self-representation.
Edwards v. Edwards, No. 19A-DR-509, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 30, 2019).
Although the US Supreme Court opinion Howell v. Howell holds that state courts are not permitted to order a veteran to indemnify a divorced spouse for the loss of the spouse’s portion of the veteran’s retirement pay caused by the veteran’s waiver of retirement pay to receive service-related disability benefit, the trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction to enter an order on veteran’s retirement pay prior to that opinion.