« Ind. Courts - Court of Appeals caseload down considerably in calendar 2009 | Main | Ind. Decisions - Legal filings indicate Office of Attorney General and the Indiana Gaming Commission to be somewhat at odds »

Monday, June 29, 2009

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 2 today (and 6 NFP)

For publication opinions today (2):

In Kenneth Baldi v. State of Indiana , an 8-page opinion, Chief Judge Baker writes:

Appellant-defendant Kenneth Baldi appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. Specifically, Baldi argues that the trial court erroneously concluded that the Indiana Parole Board (Parole Board) had not “turned over” the sentence that was imposed for Aggravated Battery, a class B felony. Baldi claims that the Parole Board discharged him from that sentence and, as a result, the trial court should have granted his motion for a writ of habeas corpus. Concluding that Baldi has failed to demonstrate any entitlement to relief, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. * * *

Baldi is apparently arguing that he could not have violated his probation until he had been “turned over” to begin serving his sentence on the FD-25 charge.

Notwithstanding this contention, we have determined that a defendant’s probationary period begins from the date of his sentencing and a violation of the terms of his probation may occur even though he has not yet begun serving his sentence, let alone his probation. Baker v. State, 894 N.E.2d 594, 598 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). Because a defendant’s probation can be revoked at any point after sentencing, the fact that Baldi’s probation on the FD-25 charge has been revoked, without more, does not establish that he ever started serving his sentence in that cause. In short, Baldi has failed to present any evidence in support of his contention that the Parole Board “turned over” the sentence on the CF-390 charge. And even though Baldi may have violated the terms of his probation on the FD-25 charge, that fact is not sufficient to support his contention. As a result, we conclude that the trial court properly denied Baldi’s request for relief.

In Ruben Maldonado v. State of Indiana, an 11-page opinion, Chief Judge Baker writes:
Appellant-petitioner Ruben Maldonado appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that the post-conviction court erroneously concluded that he did not receive the ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Maldonado argues that his attorney should have attempted to introduce evidence of the victim’s alleged statements about a sexual encounter with an imaginary brother. We find that even if these statements had fallen under the purview of the Rape Shield Rule,1 they would have been admissible via the common law exception for demonstrably false accusations of sexual misconduct. That said, we find that trial counsel could have made a reasonable strategic decision to keep this evidence out of the record for fear of evidence of Maldonado coaching his six-year-old son prior to his deposition coming into evidence as well. Therefore, we find that trial counsel was not ineffective and affirm.
NFP civil opinions today (0):

NFP criminal opinions today (6):

J.S. v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Curtis Lee Weida v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Antonio Phillips v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Darius T. Bloch v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Nathaniel Selby Bradley v. State of Indiana (NFP)

James W. Oswalt, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Posted by Marcia Oddi on June 29, 2009 12:09 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions