defendant waives claim in Indiana

2020See Floyd v. State, 503 N.E.2d 390, 393 (Ind. 1987) (“Many times this Court has held that a defendant waives error relating to venue when he fails to make an objection at the appropriate time in the trial court.”); see also Martin v. State, 247 Ind. 592 , 594 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1509 | January 17, 2020 Page 8 of 13 B.

2019See Floyd v. State , 503 N.E.2d 390 , 393 (Ind. 1987) ("Many times this [c]ourt has held that a defendant waives error relating to venue when he fails to make an objection at the appropriate time in the trial court.")

2017See, e.g., Moore v. State, 669 N.E.2d 733, 742 (Ind. 1996) (explaining that a defendant waives a claim on appeal when he does not object to the introduction of evidence, makes only a general objection, or objects only on other grounds), reh’g denied.2 2 We recognize that “[a] claim that has been waived by a defendant’s failure to raise a contemporaneous objection can be reviewed on appeal if the reviewing court determines that a fundamental error occurred.” Brown, 929 N.E.2d at 207.

2015See Moore v. State, 669 N.E.2d 733, 742 (Ind.1996) (explaining that a defendant waives a claim on appeal when he does not object to the introduction of evidence, makes only á general objection, or objects only on other grounds), reh’g denied. [29] Finally, we turn to Cole’s argument that the trial court’s admonition constituted fundamental error.

2015See Collins v. State, 817 N.E.2d 230, 231 (Ind.2004). 4 .

2013See, e.g., Collins v. State, 817 N.E.2d 230, 231 (Ind. 2004); Lee v. State, 816 N.E.2d 35, 40 (Ind. 2004); Davis v. State, 771 N.E.2d 647 , 649 n.4 (Ind. 2002); Mapp v. State, 770 N.E.2d 332, 334 (Ind. 2002); Games v. State, 743 N.E.2d 1132, 1135 (Ind. 2001); Tumulty v. State, 666 N.E.2d 394, 395 (Ind. 1996).

2015Ryan v. State, 9 N.E.3d 663, 667 (Ind. 2014).

2015Ryan v. State, 9 N.E.3d 663, 667 (Ind. 2014).

2014Hampton v. State, 754 N.E.2d 1037, 1040 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).

2006See Hampton, 754 N.E.2d at 1040 (noting that a defendant waives a claim regarding the denial of his speedy trial right if he does not make a motion to dismiss prior to trial).

2013Our supreme court held in White v. State, 963 N.E.2d 511, 518 (Ind. 2012), that a defendant waives his claim that the State untimely filed an 9 habitual offender charge when he fails to object and request a continuance.

2012Our supreme court recently held in White v. State, 963 N.E.2d 511, 518 (Ind. 2012), that a defendant waives a claim that the State did not timely file a habitual offender charge less than ten days past the omnibus date if the defendant fails to request a continuance after the trial court permits the tardy filing.

2020The State argues that Bailey has waived this claim for appellate review, and we agree. [10] “‘A defendant waives error relating to venue when he fails to make an objection at the appropriate time in the trial court.’” Peacock v. State, 126 N.E.3d 892, 896 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (quoting Harkrader v. State, 553 N.E.2d 1231, 1234 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990), trans. denied).3 Here, Bailey did not challenge the State’s establishment of venue at any time or in any manner to the trial court.

2019"A defendant waives error relating to venue when he fails to make an objection at the appropriate time in the trial court." Harkrader v. State , 553 N.E.2d 1231 , 1234 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990), trans. denied .

2020See Floyd v. State, 503 N.E.2d 390, 393 (Ind. 1987) (“Many times this Court has held that a defendant waives error relating to venue when he fails to make an objection at the appropriate time in the trial court.”); see also Martin v. State, 247 Ind. 592 , 594 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1509 | January 17, 2020 Page 8 of 13 B.

1987Martin v. State (1966), 247 Ind. 592 , 219 N.E.2d 902 ; Brown v. State (1941), 219 Ind. 251 , 37 N.E.2d 73 .

2020The State argues that Bailey has waived this claim for appellate review, and we agree. [10] “‘A defendant waives error relating to venue when he fails to make an objection at the appropriate time in the trial court.’” Peacock v. State, 126 N.E.3d 892, 896 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (quoting Harkrader v. State, 553 N.E.2d 1231, 1234 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990), trans. denied).3 Here, Bailey did not challenge the State’s establishment of venue at any time or in any manner to the trial court.

2017See also Konopasek v. State, 946 N.E.2d 23, 27 (Ind. 2011) (“Failure to object to the admission of evidence at trial normally results in waiver and precludes appellate review unless its admission Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1702-CR-263 | August 17, 2017 Page 10 of 14 2.

2017Deaton v. State, 999 N.E.2d 452, 454 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied.

2016See, e.g., Floyd v. State, 503 N.E.2d 390, 393 (Ind. 1987) (“Many times this Court has held that a defendant waives error relating to venue when he fails to make an objection at the appropriate time in the trial court.”); Smith v. State, 809 N.E.2d 938, 942 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (“a defendant waives an alleged error relating to venue when he fails to make an objection before the trial court”), trans. denied.

2015“The fundamental error exception is ‘extremely narrow, and applies only when the error constitutes a blatant violation of basic principles, the harm or potential for harm is substantial, and the resulting error denies the defendant fundamental due process.’ ” Brown, 929 N.E.2d at 207 (quoting Math *1136 ews v. State, 849 N.E.2d 578, 587 (Ind.2006)). [30] Cole has also waived appellate review of this argument because he invited any alleged error in the giving of the admonition.

2014See, e.g., Stewart v. State, 945 N.E.2d 1277, 1288 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied.

2014See id. 7 A defendant waives a defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person by failing to raise the defense in a responsive pleading or in a motion to dismiss under Indiana Trial Rule 12.

2013See, e.g., Collins v. State, 817 N.E.2d 230, 231 (Ind. 2004); Lee v. State, 816 N.E.2d 35, 40 (Ind. 2004); Davis v. State, 771 N.E.2d 647 , 649 n.4 (Ind. 2002); Mapp v. State, 770 N.E.2d 332, 334 (Ind. 2002); Games v. State, 743 N.E.2d 1132, 1135 (Ind. 2001); Tumulty v. State, 666 N.E.2d 394, 395 (Ind. 1996).

2013See, e.g., Collins v. State, 817 N.E.2d 230, 231 (Ind. 2004); Lee v. State, 816 N.E.2d 35, 40 (Ind. 2004); Davis v. State, 771 N.E.2d 647 , 649 n.4 (Ind. 2002); Mapp v. State, 770 N.E.2d 332, 334 (Ind. 2002); Games v. State, 743 N.E.2d 1132, 1135 (Ind. 2001); Tumulty v. State, 666 N.E.2d 394, 395 (Ind. 1996).

2013See, e.g., Collins v. State, 817 N.E.2d 230, 231 (Ind. 2004); Lee v. State, 816 N.E.2d 35, 40 (Ind. 2004); Davis v. State, 771 N.E.2d 647 , 649 n.4 (Ind. 2002); Mapp v. State, 770 N.E.2d 332, 334 (Ind. 2002); Games v. State, 743 N.E.2d 1132, 1135 (Ind. 2001); Tumulty v. State, 666 N.E.2d 394, 395 (Ind. 1996).

2013See, e.g., Collins v. State, 817 N.E.2d 230, 231 (Ind. 2004); Lee v. State, 816 N.E.2d 35, 40 (Ind. 2004); Davis v. State, 771 N.E.2d 647 , 649 n.4 (Ind. 2002); Mapp v. State, 770 N.E.2d 332, 334 (Ind. 2002); Games v. State, 743 N.E.2d 1132, 1135 (Ind. 2001); Tumulty v. State, 666 N.E.2d 394, 395 (Ind. 1996).

2003Capps v. State, 709 N.E.2d 24, 26 (Ind.Ct.App.1999), irons, denied.

1997See Ind.Code § 35-50-2-9(d) (1993) (“The court shall instruct the jury concerning the statutory penalties for murder and any other offenses for which the defendant was convicted, the potential for consecutive or concurrent sentencing and the availability of good time credit and clemency.” (emphasis supplied).) 27 Generally, a defendant waives a claim of instructional omission if he fails to object and tender a competing instruction at trial, Mitchem v. State, 685 N.E.2d 671, 674 (Ind.1997), unless the alleged error constitutes fundamental error.

1997Sanchez v. State, 675 N.E.2d 306, 308 (Ind.1996).