Defendant who pled guilty after a day of trial failed at his post-conviction hearing to prove that counsel’s failure to file a motion to suppress satisfied the prejudice prong of the ineffective assistance test; assuming for analysis that the motion to suppress would have been granted, defendant still had to prove prejudice in the P-C.R. 1 hearing by showing that the state would not have had sufficient evidence to convict him had trial continued.
Supreme
Lucio v. State, No. 29S00-0901-CR-1, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., June 23, 2009)
Prompt admonition to jury to disregard lay witness’s statement in violation of motion in limine “though you have never heard of it,” together with other circumstances of the trial, avoided need for mistrial.
Breaston v. State, No. 20S04-0810-CR-561, __N.E.2d __ (Ind., June 16, 2009)
Rule that habitual offender portions of sentences cannot be consecutive applies even when mandatory consecutivity statute applies.
Farris v. State, No. 02S03-0904-PC-181, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., June 17, 2009)
Consecutive habitual offender sentences are not authorized when related charges are tried in separate causes.
Bailey v. State, No. 49S02-0812-CR-00630, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., June 18, 2009)
Disorderly conduct’s “tumultuous conduct” may occur “when the aggressor appears well on his way to inflicting serious bodily injury but relents in the face of superior force or creative resistance.”