Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
16 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Henderson v. Stategreen2 sentences1998Nevertheless, "[w]hen the record indicates that the trial judge engaged in the evaluative processes but simply did not sufficiently articulate his reasons for enhancing sentence and the record indicates that the sentence imposed was not manifestly unreasonable, then the purposes underlying the specificity requirement have been satisfied." Adkins v. State , 532 N.E.2d 6, 9 (Ind. 1989)(quoting Henderson v. State , 489 N.E.2d 68, 72 (Ind. 1986)). 1997Nevertheless, “[w]hen the record indicates that the trial judge engaged in the evaluative processes but simply did not sufficiently articulate his reasons for enhancing the sentence and the record indicates that the sentence imposed was not manifestly unreasonable, then the purposes underlying the specificity requirement have been satisfied.” Adkins v. State, 532 N.E.2d 6, 9 (Ind.1989) (quoting Henderson v. State, 489 N.E.2d 68, 72 (Ind.1986)). | 3 | 10 |
Adkins v. Stategreen2 sentences1999However, “[w]hen the record indicates that the trial judge engaged in the evaluative processes but simply did not sufficiently articulate his reasons for enhancing the sentence and the record indicates that the sentence imposed was not manifestly unreasonable, then the purposes underlying the specificity requirement have been satisfied.” Id., quoting Adkins v. State, 532 N.E.2d 6, 9 (Ind.1989). 1998Nevertheless, "[w]hen the record indicates that the trial judge engaged in the evaluative processes but simply did not sufficiently articulate his reasons for enhancing sentence and the record indicates that the sentence imposed was not manifestly unreasonable, then the purposes underlying the specificity requirement have been satisfied." Adkins v. State , 532 N.E.2d 6, 9 (Ind. 1989)(quoting Henderson v. State , 489 N.E.2d 68, 72 (Ind. 1986)). | 3 | 5 |
Duvall v. Stategreen2 sentences1995Accord Duvall, supra, 540 N.E.2d at 36 ; Rabadi v. State (1989) Ind., 541 N.E.2d 271, 277 ; Adkins v. State (1988) Ind., 532 N.E.2d 6, 9 ; Chupp v. State (1987) Ind., 509 N.E.2d 835, 839 ; Harris v. State (1993) Ist Dist.Ind.App., 616 N.E.2d 25, 32 , trans. denied; Kollar v. State (1990) 3d Dist.Ind.App., 556 N.E.2d 936, 948 , trans. denied; Hunt v. State (1990) 3d Dist.Ind.App., 550 N.E.2d 838, 845 , trans. denied. 1995Accord Duvall, supra, 540 N.E.2d at 36 ; Rabadi, supra, 541 N.E.2d at 277 ; Adkins, supra, 532 N.E.2d at 9 ; Chupp v. State (1987) Ind., 509 N.E.2d 835, 839 ; Harris v. State (1993) 1st Dist.Ind.App., 616 N.E.2d 25, 32 , trans. denied; Kollar v. State (1990) 3d Dist.Ind.App., 556 N.E.2d 936, 943 , trans. denied; Hunt v. State (1990) 3d Dist.Ind.App., 550 N.E.2d 838, 845 , trans. denied. | 2 | 4 |
Berry v. Stategreen2 sentences2019“Where the record indicates that the trial court did engage in the evaluative processes but simply did not articulate sufficiently the reasons for sentence enhancement, and the record indicates that the sentence was not manifestly unreasonable, then the purposes underlying the specificity requirement are satisfied.” Berry v. State, 819 N.E.2d 443, 452 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied. 2019“Accordingly, our supreme court has held that under those circumstances, remand is unnecessary.” Id. [23] “Because reasonable minds may differ due to the subjectivity of the sentencing process, it is generally inappropriate for us to merely substitute our opinions for those of the trial judge.” Corbett, 764 N.E.2d at 630 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kollar v. State
green
2 sentences1995Accord Duvall, supra, 540 N.E.2d at 36 ; Rabadi v. State (1989) Ind., 541 N.E.2d 271, 277 ; Adkins v. State (1988) Ind., 532 N.E.2d 6, 9 ; Chupp v. State (1987) Ind., 509 N.E.2d 835, 839 ; Harris v. State (1993) Ist Dist.Ind.App., 616 N.E.2d 25, 32 , trans. denied; Kollar v. State (1990) 3d Dist.Ind.App., 556 N.E.2d 936, 948 , trans. denied; Hunt v. State (1990) 3d Dist.Ind.App., 550 N.E.2d 838, 845 , trans. denied. 1995Accord Duvall, supra, 540 N.E.2d at 36 ; Rabadi, supra, 541 N.E.2d at 277 ; Adkins, supra, 532 N.E.2d at 9 ; Chupp v. State (1987) Ind., 509 N.E.2d 835, 839 ; Harris v. State (1993) 1st Dist.Ind.App., 616 N.E.2d 25, 32 , trans. denied; Kollar v. State (1990) 3d Dist.Ind.App., 556 N.E.2d 936, 943 , trans. denied; Hunt v. State (1990) 3d Dist.Ind.App., 550 N.E.2d 838, 845 , trans. denied. | 2 | 1995–1995 |
Harris v. State
green
2 sentences1995Accord Duvall, supra, 540 N.E.2d at 36 ; Rabadi v. State (1989) Ind., 541 N.E.2d 271, 277 ; Adkins v. State (1988) Ind., 532 N.E.2d 6, 9 ; Chupp v. State (1987) Ind., 509 N.E.2d 835, 839 ; Harris v. State (1993) Ist Dist.Ind.App., 616 N.E.2d 25, 32 , trans. denied; Kollar v. State (1990) 3d Dist.Ind.App., 556 N.E.2d 936, 948 , trans. denied; Hunt v. State (1990) 3d Dist.Ind.App., 550 N.E.2d 838, 845 , trans. denied. 1995Accord Duvall, supra, 540 N.E.2d at 36 ; Rabadi, supra, 541 N.E.2d at 277 ; Adkins, supra, 532 N.E.2d at 9 ; Chupp v. State (1987) Ind., 509 N.E.2d 835, 839 ; Harris v. State (1993) 1st Dist.Ind.App., 616 N.E.2d 25, 32 , trans. denied; Kollar v. State (1990) 3d Dist.Ind.App., 556 N.E.2d 936, 943 , trans. denied; Hunt v. State (1990) 3d Dist.Ind.App., 550 N.E.2d 838, 845 , trans. denied. | 2 | 1995–1995 |
Rabadi v. State
green
2 sentences1995Accord Duvall, supra, 540 N.E.2d at 36 ; Rabadi, supra, 541 N.E.2d at 277 ; Adkins, supra, 532 N.E.2d at 9 ; Chupp v. State (1987) Ind., 509 N.E.2d 835, 839 ; Harris v. State (1993) 1st Dist.Ind.App., 616 N.E.2d 25, 32 , trans. denied; Kollar v. State (1990) 3d Dist.Ind.App., 556 N.E.2d 936, 943 , trans. denied; Hunt v. State (1990) 3d Dist.Ind.App., 550 N.E.2d 838, 845 , trans. denied. 1995Accord Duvall, supra, 540 N.E.2d at 36 ; Rabadi, supra, 541 N.E.2d at 277 ; Adkins, supra, 532 N.E.2d at 9 ; Chupp v. State (1987) Ind., 509 N.E.2d 835, 839 ; Harris v. State (1993) 1st Dist.Ind.App., 616 N.E.2d 25, 32 , trans. denied; Kollar v. State (1990) 3d Dist.Ind.App., 556 N.E.2d 936, 943 , trans. denied; Hunt v. State (1990) 3d Dist.Ind.App., 550 N.E.2d 838, 845 , trans. denied. | 2 | 1995–1995 |
Chupp v. State
green
2 sentences1995Accord Duvall, supra, 540 N.E.2d at 36 ; Rabadi v. State (1989) Ind., 541 N.E.2d 271, 277 ; Adkins v. State (1988) Ind., 532 N.E.2d 6, 9 ; Chupp v. State (1987) Ind., 509 N.E.2d 835, 839 ; Harris v. State (1993) Ist Dist.Ind.App., 616 N.E.2d 25, 32 , trans. denied; Kollar v. State (1990) 3d Dist.Ind.App., 556 N.E.2d 936, 948 , trans. denied; Hunt v. State (1990) 3d Dist.Ind.App., 550 N.E.2d 838, 845 , trans. denied. 1995Accord Duvall, supra, 540 N.E.2d at 36 ; Rabadi, supra, 541 N.E.2d at 277 ; Adkins, supra, 532 N.E.2d at 9 ; Chupp v. State (1987) Ind., 509 N.E.2d 835, 839 ; Harris v. State (1993) 1st Dist.Ind.App., 616 N.E.2d 25, 32 , trans. denied; Kollar v. State (1990) 3d Dist.Ind.App., 556 N.E.2d 936, 943 , trans. denied; Hunt v. State (1990) 3d Dist.Ind.App., 550 N.E.2d 838, 845 , trans. denied. | 2 | 1995–1995 |
Hunt v. State
green
2 sentences1995Accord Duvall, supra, 540 N.E.2d at 36 ; Rabadi v. State (1989) Ind., 541 N.E.2d 271, 277 ; Adkins v. State (1988) Ind., 532 N.E.2d 6, 9 ; Chupp v. State (1987) Ind., 509 N.E.2d 835, 839 ; Harris v. State (1993) Ist Dist.Ind.App., 616 N.E.2d 25, 32 , trans. denied; Kollar v. State (1990) 3d Dist.Ind.App., 556 N.E.2d 936, 948 , trans. denied; Hunt v. State (1990) 3d Dist.Ind.App., 550 N.E.2d 838, 845 , trans. denied. 1995Accord Duvall, supra, 540 N.E.2d at 36 ; Rabadi, supra, 541 N.E.2d at 277 ; Adkins, supra, 532 N.E.2d at 9 ; Chupp v. State (1987) Ind., 509 N.E.2d 835, 839 ; Harris v. State (1993) 1st Dist.Ind.App., 616 N.E.2d 25, 32 , trans. denied; Kollar v. State (1990) 3d Dist.Ind.App., 556 N.E.2d 936, 943 , trans. denied; Hunt v. State (1990) 3d Dist.Ind.App., 550 N.E.2d 838, 845 , trans. denied. | 2 | 1995–1995 |
Corbett v. State
green
1 sentence2019“Accordingly, our supreme court has held that under those circumstances, remand is unnecessary.” Id. [23] “Because reasonable minds may differ due to the subjectivity of the sentencing process, it is generally inappropriate for us to merely substitute our opinions for those of the trial judge.” Corbett, 764 N.E.2d at 630 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Jones v. State
green
1 sentence2004Jones, 600 N.E.2d at 548 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Mitchem v. State
green
1 sentence1999However, “[w]hen the record indicates that the trial judge engaged in the evaluative processes but simply did not sufficiently articulate his reasons for enhancing the sentence and the record indicates that the sentence imposed was not manifestly unreasonable, then the purposes underlying the specificity requirement have been satisfied.” Id., quoting Adkins v. State, 532 N.E.2d 6, 9 (Ind.1989). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Cunningham v. State
green
2 sentences1990Kollar contends his sentence was disproportionate to the severity of financial losses suffered in this case, citing Cunningham v. State (1984), Ind.App., 469 N.E.2d 1 , reh. denied, trans. denied, in favor of this proposition. 1990Kollar contends his sentence was disproportionate to the severity of financial losses suffered in this case, citing Cunningham v. State (1984), Ind. App., 469 N.E.2d 1 , reh. denied, trans. denied, in favor of this proposition. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Carman v. State
green
1 sentence1986Carman v. State (1985), Ind., 473 N.E.2d 618 ; Beasley v. State (1983), Ind., 445 N.E.2d 1372 . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Beasley v. State
green
1 sentence1986Carman v. State (1985), Ind., 473 N.E.2d 618 ; Beasley v. State (1983), Ind., 445 N.E.2d 1372 . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.