Record should be corrected to accurately reflect the facts, but this correction is not enough to provide sentencing relief.
Per Curiam
Karp v. State, No. 15S04-1610-CR-555, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 25, 2016).
Supreme Court agreed with Court of Appeals opinion affirming defendant’s conviction and sentence but vacated language that found sentencing argument to be specious and unsupported by cogent reasoning.
Adams v. ArvinMeritor, Inc., No. 49S02-1610-PL-532, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 12, 2016).
Inmates had no private right of action to pursue wage claims against a privately owned company where they worked while inmates in the Indiana Department of Correction.
Bess v. State, No. 09S02-1609-CR-484, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Sept. 14, 2016).
Trial court sentence of three years’ incarceration for one count of child solicitation was not inappropriate under Appellate Rule 7(B) and does not warrant appellate revision.
Weaver v. State, No. 32S04-1608-CR-415, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Aug. 4, 2016).
Driver who was unable to produce his driver’s license, avoided answering request for his address, evaded questions about his name, and repeatedly refused to provide his date of birth, was guilty of violating refusal-to-identify statute at Ind. Code § 34-28-5-3.5.