Plea agreement was enforceable despite its misstatement that the defendant’s consecutive sentences were capped by statute. Defendant was entitled to the benefit of his plea; sentence was mistakenly capped, but not necessarily illegal.
Supreme
Miller v. Danz, No. 49S05-1506-PL-400, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 29, 2015).
“Where Trial Rule 15(C) addresses the relation back of amendments ‘changing the party against whom a claim is asserted,’ it requires that the party to be brought in by amendment ‘knew or should have known that but for a mistake concerning the identity of the proper party, the action would have been brought against him.’ T.R. 15(C) (emphasis added). In contrast, Trial Rule 17(C) applies where ‘the name or existence of a person is unknown.’ T.R. 17(F).”
Celebration Worship Center, Inc. v. Tucker, No. 22S01-1506-PL-401, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 29, 2015).
Homeowners met criteria for adverse possession of disputed property.
Lewis v. State, No. 45S00-1312-LW-512, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. June 17, 2015).
LWOP sentencing order was deficient for failure to include judge’s personal statement that LWOP was the appropriate sentence.
State v. Vanderkolk, No. 79S04-1411-CR-718, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind., June 9, 2015).
Probationers or community corrections participants may, pursuant to a valid search condition or advance consent, authorize warrantless searches without reasonable suspicion; but language of home detention participant’s conditions of participation authorized searches only with probable cause.