• Skip to main content
  • Skip to footer
  • Categories
    • Civil
    • Criminal
    • Juvenile
  • Courts
    • Supreme
    • Appeals
    • Tax
    • SCOTUS
    • 7th Circuit
  • Judges

Case Clips

Published by the Indiana Office of Court Services

Per Curiam

Schuler v. State, No. 31S00-1703-LW-134, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 18, 2019).

October 21, 2019 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Per Curiam, Supreme

Because the trial court’s revised sentencing order demonstrated that it did not rely on non-statutory aggravating circumstances in imposing life without parole, the order was not improper.

Falls v. State, No. 19S-CR-557, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 8, 2019).

October 15, 2019 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Per Curiam, Supreme

A charge of stalking may be supported by conduct that is continuous in nature, even if it is a single episode.

Paquette v. State, No. 19S-CR-502, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Sept. 11, 2019).

September 16, 2019 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Per Curiam, Supreme

The proper sentence to avoid double jeopardy violation, where defendant caused three deaths while operating a vehicle under the influence of drugs and fleeing police, was guilt for one count of Level 3 felony resisting law enforcement causing death; two counts of Level 4 felony operating causing death; and one count of Level 6 felony operating causing serious bodily injury.

Faith v. State, No. 19S-PC-499, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Sept. 6, 2019).

September 9, 2019 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: G. Slaughter, Per Curiam, Supreme

A trial court may impose consecutive advisory sentences in a case involving multiple acts of child molestation against a single victim.

Shaw v. State, No. 19S-PC-466, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Aug. 21, 2019).

August 26, 2019 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Per Curiam, Supreme

A second or successive post-conviction petition is subject to the screening procedure outlined in P-C. R. 1(12) and must have appellate court authorization to proceed; however, a post-conviction petition that raises only issues emerging from a new trial, new sentencing, or new appeal obtained from a federal court through habeas proceedings is not a “second” or “successive” petition and does not require prior authorization.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 4
  • Go to page 5
  • Go to page 6
  • Go to page 7
  • Go to page 8
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 18
  • Go to Next Page »

Footer

About

Case Clips is a weekly publication of the Indiana Office of Court Services featuring appellate opinions curated by IOCS staff for Indiana judges.

Subscribe
  • Flickr
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Archive

Copyright © 2025 · Indiana Office of Court Services · courts.in.gov/iocs