Affirms trial court’s rejection of Batson challenge.
R. Rucker
Abbott v. State, No. 34S02-1202-CR-110, __N.E.2d __ (Ind., Feb. 22, 2012).
Maximum sentence was inappropriate when B felony enhancement was due to the arresting officer’s stopping the defendant’s car a few yards from a church.
Addison v. State, No. 49S05-1105-CR-267, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Feb. 22, 2012).
In addressing a Batson challenge by a defendant who failed to rebut the State’s purported race-neutral explanation at trial, the fundamental error standard is used on appeal to evaluate the argument the explanation was a pretext; concludes State’s explanation was a pretext when “the State failed to strike apparently similarly situated non-black venirepersons, . . . mischaracterized Turner’s voir dire testimony when offering its race-neutral reason for striking him from the panel and failed to engage Turner in any meaningful voir dire examination on the issue of his reliance on expert witness testimony.”
Hill v. State, No. 45S03-1105-PC-283, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Jan. 24, 2012).
Standard for assessing effective performance of Post-Conviction Rule 2 counsel is the Baum “due-course-of-law” standard, not the two-prong Sixth Amendment Strickland standard.
Renzulli v. State, No. 32S04-1102-CR-117, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Dec. 29,2011).
Circumstances sufficiently corroborated concerned citizen’s tip of a possibly intoxicated driver to support an investigative stop.