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.
Supreme
Rodriguez v. State, No. 18S-CR-143, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Aug, 7, 2019).
Courts may modify a sentence only if the new sentence would not have violated the terms of the valid plea agreement had the new sentence been originally imposed
State v. Stafford, No. 39S04-1712-CR-749, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Aug. 7, 2019).
Companion case to Rodriguez v. State reaffirming that trial courts are bound by the terms of a plea agreement and may only modify a sentence in a way that would have been authorized at the time of sentencing.
Cardosi v. State, No. 18S-LW-181, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., August 7, 2019).
Defendant’s conviction of murder and sentence to life in prison without parole upheld, finding that the evidence was sufficient, jurors were properly admonished, co-conspirator’s text messages were properly admitted, reading a withdrawn accomplice liability instruction was not improper, and court properly considered a non-statutory aggravator when imposing sentence.
Murray v. Indianapolis Public Schools, No. 19S-CT-282, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Aug. 8, 2019).
Student was contributorily negligent for his death when his leaving school to purchase either guns or drugs was not an exercise of reasonable care and caution for his safety.