« Ind. Courts - Court of Appeals hears dispute over "who owns the Lake Michigan beach?" | Main | Ind. Decisions - 7th Circuit decides one Indiana case today, denying do-over of 2014 Marion County Superior Court primary »
Wednesday, September 21, 2016
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 2 opinion(s) today (and 12 NFP memorandum decision(s))
For publication opinions today (2):
In Andre C. Coleman v. State of Indiana, a 9-page opinion, Judge Mathias writes:
Following a bench trial in Marion Superior Court, Andre Coleman (“Coleman”) was convicted of Class B misdemeanor public intoxication. He was ordered to serve 365 days in jail with 363 days suspended to probation. Coleman presents two issues on appeal, which we restate as whether the trial court abused its discretion in imposing a supplemental public defender fee, probation fees, and a drug and alcohol treatment fee.In Charles R. Cole, III v. State of Indiana, an 11-page opinion, Sr. Judge Barteau writes:
We vacate the imposition of the supplemental public defender and probation fees and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. * * *
Based on the record, we conclude that the trial court did not impose a supplemental public defender fee or any of the other probation fees reflected on Coleman’s case transaction summary. The imposition of these fees appears to be an error by the probation department. We therefore vacate these fees and remand to the trial court to hold an indigency hearing. Further, if the trial court concludes that Coleman is not indigent, it should order Coleman to pay a $150 alcohol and drug services fee.
Cole raises one issue, which we restate as: whether the post-conviction court erred in rejecting his claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. * * *NFP civil decisions today (6):
Cole argues the post-conviction court erred by rejecting one of his claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Specifically, he contends his attorneys should have objected to the State’s amendment of the charging information to add an additional count of robbery because the amendment was untimely. The State responds that the prosecutor was allowed under then-existing caselaw to file the amendment, so Cole’s counsel did not render ineffective assistance by declining to object. * * *
Cole has failed to establish that the post-conviction court erred. For the reasons stated above, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
NFP criminal decisions today (6):
Posted by Marcia Oddi on September 21, 2016 11:51 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions