Jordan motion in Indiana

2024D.Z. v. State, 100 N.E.3d 246, 249 (Ind. 2018). [46] But even if State’s Exhibit 101 was not cumulative to Dr. Hayes’s testimony, Jordan’s claim fails.

2017During the hearing for the motion for continuance, the State noted Jordan’s trial “was the only case that acknowledge [sic] for trial on the April 11th trial date so if his case gets continued [the court] won’t have a trial that week[.]” (Tr. at 6.) We do not find the trial court acted unreasonably or arbitrarily when it denied Jordan’s motion for continuance. 13 See Dickson, 520 N.E.2d at 105 (no error when witnesses scheduled, case had been pending for twelve months, and no prejudice); see also Conrad v. State, 747 N.E.2d 575, 585 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (trial court did not act unreasonably wh

2017Barham, 641 N.E.2d at 81 .

2017Rather, he asserts that if the trial court “unreasonably or arbitrarily interfere[d] with the right to retain counsel of choice, [the conviction] cannot stand, irrespective of whether the defendant has been prejudiced.” (Appellant’s Br. at 12-13) (citing Barham v. State, 641 N.E.2d 79, 82 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994)).

2017See Lewis v. State, 730 N.E.2d 686, 690 (Ind. 2000) (court did not err in denying continuance when “time of dozens of prospective jurors summoned for the trial would have been wasted”).

2017During the hearing for the motion for continuance, the State noted Jordan’s trial “was the only case that acknowledge [sic] for trial on the April 11th trial date so if his case gets continued [the court] won’t have a trial that week[.]” (Tr. at 6.) We do not find the trial court acted unreasonably or arbitrarily when it denied Jordan’s motion for continuance. 13 See Dickson, 520 N.E.2d at 105 (no error when witnesses scheduled, case had been pending for twelve months, and no prejudice); see also Conrad v. State, 747 N.E.2d 575, 585 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (trial court did not act unreasonably wh

2016See Floyd, 650 N.E.2d at 32 .

2016Similarly, given the civil nature of probation revocation proceedings and the corresponding due process rights applicable in such proceedings, we will apply the Baum standard to Jordan’s claim of ineffective assistance of probation revocation counsel. 10 See id.; see also Hill v. State, 960 N.E.2d 141, 143 (Ind.2012) (holding that the Baum standard was the “appropriate standard” for judging the performance of counsel in a Post-Conviction Rule 2—or a belated notice of appeal—proceeding), reh’g denied. [25] Applying this “lesser” standard, we conclude that Jordan has failed to show that his prob

1998See id. (if evidence is sufficient to sustain conviction, then trial court’s denial of directed verdict motion cannot be error).