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.
12 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 2007–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Corbett v. Stategreen2 sentences2020Under this circumstance, we “examine both the written and oral sentencing statements to discern the findings of the trial court.” McElroy v. State, 865 N.E.2d 584, 589 (Ind. 2007) (citing Corbett v. State, 764 N.E.2d 622, 631 (Ind. 2002) (“In reviewing a sentencing decision in a non-capital case, we are not limited to the written sentencing statement but may consider the trial court’s comments in the transcript of the sentencing proceedings.”); Strong v. State, 538 N.E.2d 924, 929 (Ind. 1989) (“In addition to the discussion set forth in the separate sentencing order, this Court has reviewed th 2016Corbett v. State, 764 N.E.2d 622, 631 (Ind. 2002) (“In reviewing a sentencing decision in a non-capital case, we are not limited to the written sentencing statement but may consider the trial court’s comments in the transcript of the sentencing proceedings.”) (quoting Walter v. State, 727 N.E.2d 443, 449 (Ind. 2000)); Strong v. State, 538 N.E.2d 924, 929 (Ind. 1989) (“In addition to the discussion set forth in the separate sentencing order, this Court has reviewed the trial court’s thoughtful comments at the conclusion of the sentencing hearing.”); see also Gibson v. State, 856 N.E.2d 142, 147 | 4 | 4 |
Strong v. Stategreen2 sentences2020Under this circumstance, we “examine both the written and oral sentencing statements to discern the findings of the trial court.” McElroy v. State, 865 N.E.2d 584, 589 (Ind. 2007) (citing Corbett v. State, 764 N.E.2d 622, 631 (Ind. 2002) (“In reviewing a sentencing decision in a non-capital case, we are not limited to the written sentencing statement but may consider the trial court’s comments in the transcript of the sentencing proceedings.”); Strong v. State, 538 N.E.2d 924, 929 (Ind. 1989) (“In addition to the discussion set forth in the separate sentencing order, this Court has reviewed th 2016Corbett v. State, 764 N.E.2d 622, 631 (Ind. 2002) (“In reviewing a sentencing decision in a non-capital case, we are not limited to the written sentencing statement but may consider the trial court’s comments in the transcript of the sentencing proceedings.”) (quoting Walter v. State, 727 N.E.2d 443, 449 (Ind. 2000)); Strong v. State, 538 N.E.2d 924, 929 (Ind. 1989) (“In addition to the discussion set forth in the separate sentencing order, this Court has reviewed the trial court’s thoughtful comments at the conclusion of the sentencing hearing.”); see also Gibson v. State, 856 N.E.2d 142, 147 | 4 | 4 |
Gibson v. Stategreen2 sentences2016Corbett v. State, 764 N.E.2d 622, 631 (Ind. 2002) (“In reviewing a sentencing decision in a non-capital case, we are not limited to the written sentencing statement but may consider the trial court’s comments in the transcript of the sentencing proceedings.”) (quoting Walter v. State, 727 N.E.2d 443, 449 (Ind. 2000)); Strong v. State, 538 N.E.2d 924, 929 (Ind. 1989) (“In addition to the discussion set forth in the separate sentencing order, this Court has reviewed the trial court’s thoughtful comments at the conclusion of the sentencing hearing.”); see also Gibson v. State, 856 N.E.2d 142, 147 2007Corbett v. State, 764 N.E.2d 622, 631 (Ind.2002) (“In reviewing a sentencing decision in a non-capital case, we are not limited to the written sentencing statement but may consider the trial court’s comments in the transcript of the sentencing proceedings.”) (quoting Walter v. State, 727 N.E.2d 443, 449 (Ind.2000)); Strong v. State, 538 N.E.2d 924, 929 (Ind.1989) (“In addition to the discussion set forth in the separate sentencing order, this Court has reviewed the trial court’s thoughtful comments at the conclusion of the sentencing hearing.”); see also Gibson v. State, 856 N.E.2d 142, 147 (I | 2 | 2 |
Powell v. Stategreen2 sentences2016Corbett v. State, 764 N.E.2d 622, 631 (Ind. 2002) (“In reviewing a sentencing decision in a non-capital case, we are not limited to the written sentencing statement but may consider the trial court’s comments in the transcript of the sentencing proceedings.”) (quoting Walter v. State, 727 N.E.2d 443, 449 (Ind. 2000)); Strong v. State, 538 N.E.2d 924, 929 (Ind. 1989) (“In addition to the discussion set forth in the separate sentencing order, this Court has reviewed the trial court’s thoughtful comments at the conclusion of the sentencing hearing.”); see also Gibson v. State, 856 N.E.2d 142, 147 2007Corbett v. State, 764 N.E.2d 622, 631 (Ind.2002) (“In reviewing a sentencing decision in a non-capital case, we are not limited to the written sentencing statement but may consider the trial court’s comments in the transcript of the sentencing proceedings.”) (quoting Walter v. State, 727 N.E.2d 443, 449 (Ind.2000)); Strong v. State, 538 N.E.2d 924, 929 (Ind.1989) (“In addition to the discussion set forth in the separate sentencing order, this Court has reviewed the trial court’s thoughtful comments at the conclusion of the sentencing hearing.”); see also Gibson v. State, 856 N.E.2d 142, 147 (I | 2 | 2 |
Walter v. Stategreen2 sentences2016Corbett v. State, 764 N.E.2d 622, 631 (Ind. 2002) (“In reviewing a sentencing decision in a non-capital case, we are not limited to the written sentencing statement but may consider the trial court’s comments in the transcript of the sentencing proceedings.”) (quoting Walter v. State, 727 N.E.2d 443, 449 (Ind. 2000)); Strong v. State, 538 N.E.2d 924, 929 (Ind. 1989) (“In addition to the discussion set forth in the separate sentencing order, this Court has reviewed the trial court’s thoughtful comments at the conclusion of the sentencing hearing.”); see also Gibson v. State, 856 N.E.2d 142, 147 2007Corbett v. State, 764 N.E.2d 622, 631 (Ind.2002) (“In reviewing a sentencing decision in a non-capital case, we are not limited to the written sentencing statement but may consider the trial court’s comments in the transcript of the sentencing proceedings.”) (quoting Walter v. State, 727 N.E.2d 443, 449 (Ind.2000)); Strong v. State, 538 N.E.2d 924, 929 (Ind.1989) (“In addition to the discussion set forth in the separate sentencing order, this Court has reviewed the trial court’s thoughtful comments at the conclusion of the sentencing hearing.”); see also Gibson v. State, 856 N.E.2d 142, 147 (I | 2 | 2 |
Newman v. Stategreen2 sentences2016Corbett v. State, 764 N.E.2d 622, 631 (Ind. 2002) (“In reviewing a sentencing decision in a non-capital case, we are not limited to the written sentencing statement but may consider the trial court’s comments in the transcript of the sentencing proceedings.”) (quoting Walter v. State, 727 N.E.2d 443, 449 (Ind. 2000)); Strong v. State, 538 N.E.2d 924, 929 (Ind. 1989) (“In addition to the discussion set forth in the separate sentencing order, this Court has reviewed the trial court’s thoughtful comments at the conclusion of the sentencing hearing.”); see also Gibson v. State, 856 N.E.2d 142, 147 2007Corbett v. State, 764 N.E.2d 622, 631 (Ind.2002) (“In reviewing a sentencing decision in a non-capital case, we are not limited to the written sentencing statement but may consider the trial court’s comments in the transcript of the sentencing proceedings.”) (quoting Walter v. State, 727 N.E.2d 443, 449 (Ind.2000)); Strong v. State, 538 N.E.2d 924, 929 (Ind.1989) (“In addition to the discussion set forth in the separate sentencing order, this Court has reviewed the trial court’s thoughtful comments at the conclusion of the sentencing hearing.”); see also Gibson v. State, 856 N.E.2d 142, 147 (I | 2 | 2 |
Webb v. Stategreen2 sentences2012See Webb v. State, 941 N.E.2d 1082, 1088 (Ind.Ct.App.2011) (finding the sentencing statement sufficient when it was determined that at the conclusion of the sentencing hearing, the trial court discussed the evidence concerning Webb’s mental health and rejected it as a mitigating factor. 2012See Webb v. State, 941 N.E.2d 1082, 1088 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (finding the sentencing statement sufficient when it was determined that at the conclusion of the sentencing hearing, the trial court discussed the evidence concerning Webb‟s mental health and rejected it as a mitigating factor. | 2 | 2 |
McElroy v. Stategreen1 sentence2020Under this circumstance, we “examine both the written and oral sentencing statements to discern the findings of the trial court.” McElroy v. State, 865 N.E.2d 584, 589 (Ind. 2007) (citing Corbett v. State, 764 N.E.2d 622, 631 (Ind. 2002) (“In reviewing a sentencing decision in a non-capital case, we are not limited to the written sentencing statement but may consider the trial court’s comments in the transcript of the sentencing proceedings.”); Strong v. State, 538 N.E.2d 924, 929 (Ind. 1989) (“In addition to the discussion set forth in the separate sentencing order, this Court has reviewed th | 1 | 1 |
Taylor v. Stategreen1 sentence2016McCullough, 973 N.E.2d at 75 ; see also Taylor v. State, 840 N.E.2d 324, 331 (Ind. 2006) (failure to Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1504-PC-287 | March 10, 2016 Page 9 of 14 satisfy either component will cause ineffective assistance of counsel claim to fail). [14] In asserting that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, Phillips refers us to Lamont’s statement at the conclusion of the sentencing hearing, where Lamont told the trial court, “I was ineffective as his counsel on advising him as to the consequences of certain waivers that are contained within his pl | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Creech v. State
green
2 sentences2018Creech, 887 N.E.2d at 76 . 2017In Creech, the Court held that such mistaken advisement was not grounds for allowing defendants to circumvent plea agreements. 887 N.E.2d at 76 . | 3 | 2008–2018 |
Brent A. Mechling v. State of Indiana
green
2 sentences2016Id. at 1017-18 . 2015Id. at 1017-18 . | 2 | 2015–2016 |
Ian McCullough v. State of Indiana
green
1 sentence2016McCullough, 973 N.E.2d at 75 ; see also Taylor v. State, 840 N.E.2d 324, 331 (Ind. 2006) (failure to Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1504-PC-287 | March 10, 2016 Page 9 of 14 satisfy either component will cause ineffective assistance of counsel claim to fail). [14] In asserting that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, Phillips refers us to Lamont’s statement at the conclusion of the sentencing hearing, where Lamont told the trial court, “I was ineffective as his counsel on advising him as to the consequences of certain waivers that are contained within his pl | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.