Friday, September 28, 2012
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 2 today (and 15 NFP)
For publication opinions today (2):
In Steven Duncan v. State of Indiana , a 12-page opinion, Chief Judge Robb writes:
Following a bench trial, Steven Duncan was convicted of six counts of cruelty to an animal, all Class A misdemeanors. He raises three issues for our review: 1) Whether he knowingly waived his right to a jury trial; 2) Whether Indiana’s animal cruelty statute is unconstitutionally vague; and 3) Whether there was sufficient evidence to overcome a defense of necessity.In Paul Hardy v. State of Indiana , a 10-page opinion, Chief Judge Robb writes:
Concluding that Duncan did not knowingly waive his right to a jury trial because the trial court did not fully advise him of his rights and obligations, that the statute is not vague as applied to him, and that there was sufficient evidence to overcome a defense of necessity, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
Paul Hardy appeals the trial court’s revocation of his probation in multiple cases. For our review, Hardy raises one issue: whether the trial court properly ordered him to serve all of his previously suspended sentences when it revoked his probation. Concluding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its disposition of Hardy’s probation revocation, we affirm.NFP civil opinions today (3):
NFP criminal opinions today (12):
In State of Indiana v. Jamie Ray Scheckles (NFP), a 6-page opinion, Judge Vaidik writes:
The State charged Jamie Ray Sheckles with four felonies, and Sheckles and the State entered into a plea agreement for Class B felony dealing in a narcotic drug. According to the plea agreement, Sheckles was required to serve fifteen years in the Indiana Department of Correction but could petition for modification of his sentence after serving twelve years. Less than three years after he was sentenced, Sheckles filed a motion to enter work release, which the trial court granted. The State now appeals.Nathan W. Golden v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Because the restricted right to seek modification of his sentence was an explicit term in Sheckles’ plea agreement, the trial court became bound by that term when it accepted the agreement. Accordingly, the court could not modify Sheckles’ sentence until he served twelve years. We therefore reverse and remand.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on September 28, 2012 01:03 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions