21 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2018 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
McElroy v. Stategreen2 sentences2017“The approach employed by Indiana appellate courts in reviewing sentences in non-capital cases is to examine both the written and oral sentencing statements to discern the findings of the trial court.” McElroy, 865 N.E.2d at 589 . 2014See McElroy v. State, 865 N.E.2d 584, 589 (Ind. 2007) 8 (explaining that we are to examine both the written and oral sentencing statements to discretion the findings of the trial court). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Mooregreen2 sentences2008Specifically, we stated, in relevant part: However, “defendants who can show that they were coerced or misled into pleading guilty by the judge, prosecutor or defense counsel will present colorable claims for relief.” [State v. Moore, 678 N.E.2d 1258, 1266 (Ind.1997).] To assess whether the plea was voluntary, we review the post-conviction record, including any testimony, and the direct appeal record, including the transcript of the sentencing hearing, the plea agreement, and any other exhibits. 2008Id. | 1 | 2 |
Lightcap v. Stategreen1 sentence2013See Lightcap v. State, 863 N.E.2d 907, 911 (Ind.Ct.App.2007) (noting that it is the appellant’s duty to present an adequate record clearly showing the alleged error). | 1 | 1 |
Spitler v. Stategreen1 sentence2012“This court has authority to revise a sentence ‘if, after due consideration of the trial court’s decision, the Court finds that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.’” 8 The sentencing hearing is the only transcript in the record before us; therefore, for ease of citation, we cite to the transcript of the sentencing hearing merely as “Tr.” 5 Spitler v. State, 908 N.E.2d 694, 696 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (quoting Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B)), trans. denied. | 1 | 1 |
Purvis v. Stategreen1 sentence2012“Although appellate review of sentences must give due consideration to the trial court’s sentence because of the special expertise of the trial bench in making sentencing decisions, Appellate Rule 7(B) is an authorization to revise sentences when certain broad conditions are satisfied.” Purvis v. State, 829 N.E.2d 572, 587 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (internal citations omitted), trans. denied, cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1026 (2006). | 1 | 1 |
Windhorst v. Stategreen2 sentences2010However, "where the trial court erred in sentencing a defendant, there are several options for the appellate court." Windhorst v. State, 868 N.E.2d 504, 507 (Ind.2007), reh'g denied. "`Without a trial court sentencing order that meets the requirements of the law,' we have the option *1239 to remand to the trial court for a clarification or new sentencing determination." Id. (quoting Brown v. State, 783 N.E.2d 1121, 1129 (Ind.2003)). 2010However, "where the trial court erred in sentencing a defendant, there are several options for the appellate court." Windhorst v. State, 868 N.E.2d 504, 507 (Ind.2007), reh'g denied. "`Without a trial court sentencing order that meets the requirements of the law,' we have the option *1239 to remand to the trial court for a clarification or new sentencing determination." Id. (quoting Brown v. State, 783 N.E.2d 1121, 1129 (Ind.2003)). | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Stategreen2 sentences2010However, "where the trial court erred in sentencing a defendant, there are several options for the appellate court." Windhorst v. State, 868 N.E.2d 504, 507 (Ind.2007), reh'g denied. "`Without a trial court sentencing order that meets the requirements of the law,' we have the option *1239 to remand to the trial court for a clarification or new sentencing determination." Id. (quoting Brown v. State, 783 N.E.2d 1121, 1129 (Ind.2003)). 2010However, "where the trial court erred in sentencing a defendant, there are several options for the appellate court." Windhorst v. State, 868 N.E.2d 504, 507 (Ind.2007), reh'g denied. " 'Without a trial court sentencing order that meets the requirements of the law," we have the option to remand to the trial court for a clarification or new sentencing determination." Id. (quoting Brown v. State, 783 N.E.2d 1121, 1129 (Ind.2008)). | 1 | 1 |
Vasquez v. Stategreen1 sentence2007See Vasquez, 762 N.E.2d at 98; Smith, 675 N.E.2d at 698 . | 1 | 1 |
Posey v. Stategreen1 sentence2000See Posey v. State, 622 N.E.2d 1032, 1034 (Ind.Ct.App.1993), trans. denied (consideration of an issue is waived because the defendant failed to include the transcript of the sentencing hearing). | 1 | 1 |
Pannarale v. Stategreen1 sentence1999Cf. Pannarale v. State, 627 N.E.2d 828, 831 (Ind.Ct.App.1994), summ. aff'd, 638 N.E.2d 1247, 1249 (Ind.1994) (failure to submit transcript of hearing on motion for return of property resulted in waiver of issue on appeal). | 1 | 1 |
Pannarale v. Stategreen1 sentence1999Cf. Pannarale v. State, 627 N.E.2d 828, 831 (Ind.Ct.App.1994), summ. aff'd, 638 N.E.2d 1247, 1249 (Ind.1994) (failure to submit transcript of hearing on motion for return of property resulted in waiver of issue on appeal). | 1 | 1 |
Montes v. Stategreen2 sentences1999App.1985); Montes v. State, 263 Ind. 390, 395 , 332 N.E.2d 786, 790 (1975). [5] In reading the transcript of the sentencing hearing, it is unclear whether Campbell was given credit for the time he had actually served at the Work Release Center before his violation of the rules. 1999App.1985); Montes v. State, 263 Ind. 390, 395 , 332 N.E.2d 786, 790 (1975). [5] In reading the transcript of the sentencing hearing, it is unclear whether Campbell was given credit for the time he had actually served at the Work Release Center before his violation of the rules. | 1 | 1 |
Hardesty v. Stategreen2 sentences1982See, e.g., Hardesty v. State (1967), 249 Ind. 518 , 231 N.E.2d 510 ; Shorter v. State (1954), 234 Ind. 1 , 122 N.E.2d 847 . [5] We do not suggest it cannot be done merely that the law requires that it be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. [1] The transcript of the sentencing hearing reveals that the Slushers began the erection of a steel stairway approximately two weeks before their sentencing, which occurred on September 4, 1980. [2] A recent case indicates that a person, after entering and possessing property as a prospective purchaser rather than as a tenant to a preexisting lease, will be d 1982See, e.g., Hardesty v. State (1967), 249 Ind. 518 , 231 N.E.2d 510 ; Shorter v. State (1954), 234 Ind. 1 , 122 N.E.2d 847 . [5] We do not suggest it cannot be done merely that the law requires that it be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. [1] The transcript of the sentencing hearing reveals that the Slushers began the erection of a steel stairway approximately two weeks before their sentencing, which occurred on September 4, 1980. [2] A recent case indicates that a person, after entering and possessing property as a prospective purchaser rather than as a tenant to a preexisting lease, will be d | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hill v. State
green
2 sentences1989Hill v. State (1986), Ind., 499 N.E.2d 1103 . 1989Hill v. State (1986), Ind., 499 N.E.2d 1103 . | 3 | 1989–1989 |
United States v. Paul C. \Paulie\" Villano"
green
2 sentences2007Marshall, 621 N.E.2d at 323 (citing United States v. Roberts, 933 F.2d 517 (7th Cir.1991) and United States v. Villano, 816 F.2d 1448 (10th Cir.1987)). 1993United States v. Roberts (th Cir. 1991), 988 F.2d 517 ; United States v. Vil-lano (10th Cir.1987), 816 F.2d 1448 . | 2 | 1993–2007 |
Anglemyer v. State
green
1 sentence2018Anglemyer, 868 N.E.2d at 490 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Moshenek v. State
green
1 sentence2015The transcript of the sentencing hearing reflects the trial court did not use that as an aggravator. [11] Pringle had substantial familiarity with the legal system, which our Supreme Court recognized in Moshenek as a factor in determining diligence and lack of fault in the delay of filing. 868 N.E.2d at 423 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
United States v. Clarence Roberts, Jr.
green
1 sentence2007Marshall, 621 N.E.2d at 323 (citing United States v. Roberts, 933 F.2d 517 (7th Cir.1991) and United States v. Villano, 816 F.2d 1448 (10th Cir.1987)). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Marshall v. State
green
1 sentence2007Marshall, 621 N.E.2d at 323 (citing United States v. Roberts, 933 F.2d 517 (7th Cir.1991) and United States v. Villano, 816 F.2d 1448 (10th Cir.1987)). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Smith v. State
green
1 sentence2007See Vasquez, 762 N.E.2d at 98; Smith, 675 N.E.2d at 698 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Carlson v. State
green
1 sentence2006Frey cites Carlson v. State, 716 N.E.2d 469 (Ind.Ct.App.1999) as authority for the proposition that "[t]he remoteness of this prior conviction should be considered by the court and construed in Frey's favor." Appellant's Brief at 5. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences1992Therefore, the question is properly presented whether Brown's appellate counsel was ineffective in presenting the unanimity issue. 8 Ineffective assistance of counsel claims are judged by the standard set forth in Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 . 1992Therefore, the question is properly presented whether Brown's appellate counsel was ineffective in presenting the unanimity issue. 8 Ineffective assistance of counsel claims are judged by the standard set forth in Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Shorter v. State
green
2 sentences1982See, e.g., Hardesty v. State (1967), 249 Ind. 518 , 231 N.E.2d 510 ; Shorter v. State (1954), 234 Ind. 1 , 122 N.E.2d 847 . [5] We do not suggest it cannot be done merely that the law requires that it be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. [1] The transcript of the sentencing hearing reveals that the Slushers began the erection of a steel stairway approximately two weeks before their sentencing, which occurred on September 4, 1980. [2] A recent case indicates that a person, after entering and possessing property as a prospective purchaser rather than as a tenant to a preexisting lease, will be d 1982See, e.g., Hardesty v. State (1967), 249 Ind. 518 , 231 N.E.2d 510 ; Shorter v. State (1954), 234 Ind. 1 , 122 N.E.2d 847 . [5] We do not suggest it cannot be done merely that the law requires that it be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. [1] The transcript of the sentencing hearing reveals that the Slushers began the erection of a steel stairway approximately two weeks before their sentencing, which occurred on September 4, 1980. [2] A recent case indicates that a person, after entering and possessing property as a prospective purchaser rather than as a tenant to a preexisting lease, will be d | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Wallace v. Rogier
green
1 sentence1982Wallace v. Rogier (1979), Ind. App., 395 N.E.2d 297, 299 . | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.