A defendant whose motion to suppress is denied cannot plead guilty and then appeal the denial of his motion, even if his plea agreement provides for it.
T. Boehm
Pollard v. State, No. 05S02-0906-CR-305, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., June 30, 2009)
Retroactive application of the sex offender “residency restriction statute” to Pollard violates the Indiana Constitution’s Ex Post Facto Clause.
In re Adoption of Unborn Child B.W., No. 03S04-0810-CV-560, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., June 26, 2009)
Biological father’s consent to the adoption of his child was not irrevocably implied when he failed to file a motion to contest in the adoption court but did take concurrent steps to establish paternity and preserve and assert his parental rights in another court.
Helton v. State, No. 20S04-0901-PC-41, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., June 23, 2009)
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.
Spar v. Cha, No. 45S05-0906-CV-273, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., June 16, 2009)
Incurred risk is not a defense to medical malpractice based on negligence or lack of informed consent; plaintiff’s consents to prior surgeries were admissible to counter her lack-of-informed-consent claim to the extent that claim was based on failure to inform her of typical risks in the procedure.