22 Indiana opinions name it 3 courts 2000–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Indiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Guyton v. Stategreen2 sentences2008As the Supreme Court recognized in Guyton v. State, 771 N.E.2d 1141, 1143 (Ind.2002), the two-part Richardson test is not the exclusive measure of double jeopardy violations. 2008As the Supreme Court recognized in Guyton v. State, 771 N.E.2d 1141, 1143 (Ind.2002), the two-part Richardson test is not the exclusive measure of double jeopardy violations. | 2 | 2 |
Richardson v. Stategreen2 sentences2019See Thy Ho v. State, 725 N.E.2d 988, 992 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (charges of armed robbery and theft Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2624 | May 23, 2019 Page 15 of 21 did not violate statutory elements test; the offenses as charged involved different victims and different types of property). [40] When the statutory elements test does not disclose a double jeopardy violation, we turn to the second part of the Richardson analysis, the actual elements test. 717 N.E.2d at 52 . 2019See Thy Ho v. State, 725 N.E.2d 988, 992 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (charges of armed robbery and theft Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2624 | May 23, 2019 Page 15 of 21 did not violate statutory elements test; the offenses as charged involved different victims and different types of property). [40] When the statutory elements test does not disclose a double jeopardy violation, we turn to the second part of the Richardson analysis, the actual elements test. 717 N.E.2d at 52 . | 1 | 6 |
Spivey v. Stategreen2 sentences2002Accordingly, the dual convictions do not run afoul of the Richardson test as recently considered in Spivey v. State, 761 N.E.2d 831 (Ind.2002). 4 In all other respects I fully concur. . 2002Accordingly, the dual convictions do not run afoul of the Richardson test as recently considered in Spivey v. State, 761 N.E.2d 831 (Ind.2002). 4 In all other respects I fully concur. . | 1 | 2 |
Billy Deon Blackmon v. State of Indianagreen1 sentence2019See Cartwright, 962 N.E.2d at 1222 (providing that neither state nor federal law require a trial court to make explicit findings when deciding whether the State offered a race-neutral reason for striking a potential juror); Blackmon, 47 N.E.3d at 1234 (indicating that the trial court is not required to make explicit findings every time the prosecution justifies a peremptory strike based on a juror’s demeanor). | 1 | 1 |
Thy Ho v. Stategreen2 sentences2019See Thy Ho v. State, 725 N.E.2d 988, 992 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (charges of armed robbery and theft Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2624 | May 23, 2019 Page 15 of 21 did not violate statutory elements test; the offenses as charged involved different victims and different types of property). [40] When the statutory elements test does not disclose a double jeopardy violation, we turn to the second part of the Richardson analysis, the actual elements test. 717 N.E.2d at 52 . 2019See Thy Ho v. State, 725 N.E.2d 988, 992 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (charges of armed robbery and theft Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2624 | May 23, 2019 Page 15 of 21 did not violate statutory elements test; the offenses as charged involved different victims and different types of property). [40] When the statutory elements test does not disclose a double jeopardy violation, we turn to the second part of the Richardson analysis, the actual elements test. 717 N.E.2d at 52 . | 1 | 1 |
Cartwright v. Stategreen1 sentence2019See Cartwright, 962 N.E.2d at 1222 (providing that neither state nor federal law require a trial court to make explicit findings when deciding whether the State offered a race-neutral reason for striking a potential juror); Blackmon, 47 N.E.3d at 1234 (indicating that the trial court is not required to make explicit findings every time the prosecution justifies a peremptory strike based on a juror’s demeanor). | 1 | 1 |
Richardson's RV Inc. v. Indiana Department of State Revenuegreen2 sentences2017See generally Richardson’s RV Inc. v. Ind. Dep’t of State Revenue, No. 49T10-1504-TA-00016, 80 N.E.3d 293 , 2017 WL 3300828 , Slip. op., (Ind. Tax Ct. August 1, 2017). 2017See generally Richardson’s RV Inc. v. Ind. Dep’t of State Revenue, No. 49T10-1504-TA-00016, 80 N.E.3d 293 , 2017 WL 3300828 , Slip. op., (Ind. Tax Ct. August 1, 2017). | 1 | 1 |
Bruce v. Stategreen1 sentence2016We must determine whether Gonzalez’s conviction of Class B felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent offender required the trial court to reduce Gonzalez’s convictions of robbery and criminal confinement from Class B to Class C felonies. [12] Under the “actual evidence” test, we must examine the evidence presented at trial to determine “whether each challenged offense was established by separate and distinct facts.” Bruce v. State, 749 N.E.2d 587, 590 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (quoting Richardson, 717 N.E.2d at 53 ), trans. denied. | 1 | 1 |
Bald v. Stategreen2 sentences2016Id. at 53 . [41] Our supreme court clarified the Richardson test in Bald v. State, holding that no violation of the actual evidence test occurs as long as “each conviction [contains] proof of at least one unique evidentiary fact.” 766 N.E.2d 1170, 1172 (Ind. 2002). 2016Id. at 53 . [41] Our supreme court clarified the Richardson test in Bald v. State, holding that no violation of the actual evidence test occurs as long as “each conviction [contains] proof of at least one unique evidentiary fact.” 766 N.E.2d 1170, 1172 (Ind. 2002). | 1 | 1 |
Taylor v. Finnangreen1 sentence2014See Taylor, 955 N.E.2d at 789 (writ of habeas corpus based on a lawyer not being licensed in Indiana was properly reclassified as a petition for post-conviction relief because the judgment was not void on its face). | 1 | 1 |
KOA Properties, LLC v. Laura Matheisongreen1 sentence2014Richardson’s motion to correct error challenged the denial of her “Emergency Motion to Continue or in the Alternative Motion to Set Aside Judgment.” (App. 22.) Indiana Small Claims Rule 10(B) provides in relevant part: “If the defendant fails to appear at the time and place specified in the notice of claim, or for any continuance thereof, the court may enter a default judgment against him.” One who seeks to set aside a default judgment is subject to section 10(C), which provides in part: “Upon good cause shown the court may, within one year after entering default judgment, vacate such judgment | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. Stategreen2 sentences2013Id. at 824. 2013Id. at 824. | 1 | 1 |
Goldsberry v. Stategreen2 sentences2012See Goldberry, 821 N.E.2d at 459 . 7 35-48-4-6 is a lesser included offense of dealing in cocaine.2 Harrison v. State, 901 N.E.2d 635, 643 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied. 2012See Goldberry, 821 N.E.2d at 459 . 7 35-48-4-6 is a lesser included offense of dealing in cocaine.2 Harrison v. State, 901 N.E.2d 635, 643 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied. | 1 | 1 |
Harrison v. Stategreen2 sentences2012See Goldberry, 821 N.E.2d at 459 . 7 35-48-4-6 is a lesser included offense of dealing in cocaine.2 Harrison v. State, 901 N.E.2d 635, 643 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied. 2012See Goldberry, 821 N.E.2d at 459 . 7 35-48-4-6 is a lesser included offense of dealing in cocaine.2 Harrison v. State, 901 N.E.2d 635, 643 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied. | 1 | 1 |
Muehler v. Menagreen2 sentences2009See Muchler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93, 101 , 125 S.Ct. 1465 , 161 LEd.2d 299 (2005). 2009See Muchler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93, 101 , 125 S.Ct. 1465 , 161 LEd.2d 299 (2005). | 1 | 1 |
Sensback v. Stategreen1 sentence2009See Sensback v. State, 720 N.E.2d 1160, 1165 (Ind.1999). | 1 | 1 |
Kingery v. Stategreen1 sentence2002Quoting Pierce , and relying upon the pre-Richardson analysis in Kingery v. State, 659 N.E.2d 490, 495-96 (Ind.1995), the court in Gross v. State, 769 N.E.2d 1136, 1139 (Ind.2002), determined that a murder conviction and a robbery conviction enhanced to a class A felony based upon the same acts subsumed in the murder could not both stand. | 1 | 1 |
Gross v. Stategreen1 sentence2002Quoting Pierce , and relying upon the pre-Richardson analysis in Kingery v. State, 659 N.E.2d 490, 495-96 (Ind.1995), the court in Gross v. State, 769 N.E.2d 1136, 1139 (Ind.2002), determined that a murder conviction and a robbery conviction enhanced to a class A felony based upon the same acts subsumed in the murder could not both stand. | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Stategreen1 sentence2000Williams v. State, 669 N.E.2d 1372, 1375-76 (Ind.1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1232 , 117 S.Ct. 1828 , 137 L.Ed.2d 1034 (1997). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Juan M. Garrett v. State of Indiana
green
2 sentences2024The court then stated that, “[b]ecause Wadle’s case presents no question of procedural double jeopardy, we expressly reserve any conclusion on whether to overrule Richardson in that context.” Id. 4 Our supreme court first utilized the Richardson test to address a claim of procedural double jeopardy in Garrett v. State, 992 N.E.2d 710 (Ind. 2013). 2024The court then stated that, “[b]ecause Wadle’s case presents no question of procedural double jeopardy, we expressly reserve any conclusion on whether to overrule Richardson in that context.” Id. 4 Our supreme court first utilized the Richardson test to address a claim of procedural double jeopardy in Garrett v. State, 992 N.E.2d 710 (Ind. 2013). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Richardson
green
1 sentence2023Id. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Drane v. State
green
1 sentence2019Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144 , 146–47 (Ind. 2007) (citations, emphasis, and quotations omitted). [25] Initially, we note that Richardson’s claim regarding the sufficiency of the evidence was based entirely on his claim that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting Exhibits 3, 6, and 7. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Richardson
neutral
1 sentence2010State v. Richardson, 906 N.E.2d 263 (Ind.Ct.App.2009). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Alexander v. State
green
2 sentences2002The Richardson/Spivey analysis is considered in Alexander v. State, 768 N.E.2d 971 (Ind.Ct.App.2002) also decided this date. 2002The Richardson/Spivey analysis is considered in Alexander v. State, 768 N.E.2d 971 (Ind.Ct.App.2002) also decided this date. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Taylor v. State
green
2 sentences2000Atchley acknowledges that the Richardson analysis may not be applied retroactively in a post-conviction proceeding, and therefore that he “cannot rely on the actual evidence test announced in Richardson to argue that appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising a double jeopardy argument on appeal.” Appellant’s Brief at 17 (citing Taylor v. State, 717 N.E.2d 90 ). 2000Atchley acknowledges that the Richardson analysis may not be applied retroactively in a post-conviction proceeding, and therefore that he “cannot rely on the actual evidence test announced in Richardson to argue that appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising a double jeopardy argument on appeal.” Appellant’s Brief at 17 (citing Taylor v. State, 717 N.E.2d 90 ). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Mitchell v. Albuquerque Board of Education
green
1 sentence2000Williams v. State, 669 N.E.2d 1372, 1375-76 (Ind.1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1232 , 117 S.Ct. 1828 , 137 L.Ed.2d 1034 (1997). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
White v. O'Connor
green
1 sentence2000Williams v. State, 669 N.E.2d 1372, 1375-76 (Ind.1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1232 , 117 S.Ct. 1828 , 137 L.Ed.2d 1034 (1997). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Dye v. Michigan
green
1 sentence2000Williams v. State, 669 N.E.2d 1372, 1375-76 (Ind.1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1232 , 117 S.Ct. 1828 , 137 L.Ed.2d 1034 (1997). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.