9 Indiana opinions name it 1 courts 2001–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Anglemyer v. Stategreen2 sentences2020A court abuses its sentencing discretion by omitting a mitigating circumstance that is “clearly supported by the record and advanced for consideration.” Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 490-91 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh’g. 2019A court abuses its sentencing discretion by omitting a mitigating circumstance that is “clearly supported by the record and advanced for consideration.” Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 490-91 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh’g. | 4 | 4 |
Curtis A. Bethea v. State of Indianagreen2 sentences2020We review its decision for an abuse of discretion, which “occurs if the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court.” Bethea v. State, 983 N.E.2d 1134, 1139 (Ind. 2013). [8] In accordance with Indiana Code Section 35-38-1-3, “[b]efore sentencing a person for a felony, the court must conduct a hearing to consider the facts and circumstances relevant to sentencing.” If the court identifies aggravating or mitigating circumstances, then the court must enter a “statement of the court’s reasons for selecting the sentence that it imposes.” I.C. § 3 2019We review its decision for an abuse of discretion, which “occurs if the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court.” Bethea v. State, 983 N.E.2d 1134, 1139 (Ind. 2013). [14] Pursuant to Indiana Code Section 35-38-1-3, “[b]efore sentencing a person for a felony, the court must conduct a hearing to consider the facts and circumstances relevant to sentencing.” If the court identifies aggravating or mitigating circumstances, then the court must enter a “statement of the court’s reasons for selecting the sentence that it imposes.” I.C. § 35-38-1 | 3 | 3 |
Rumfelt v. Himesgreen1 sentence2019Rumfelt v. Himes, 438 N.E.2d 980, 983-84 (Ind. 1982) (determining that Trial Rule 41(E)’s hearing requirement controls over Trial Rule 73). [24] Here, the trial rules do not indicate that a hearing was required on EMC’s motion, and the Francises cite to no authority that entitled them to such a hearing. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Nathan Carl Gilbert v. State of Indiana
green
1 sentence2020The person is entitled to subpoena and call witnesses and to present information in his own behalf. 982 N.E.2d at 1092 (quoting Ind. Code § 35-38-1-3 (1983)). [21] In Gilbert, the defendant was serving a sentence in Kentucky when he was charged with offenses in Indiana. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Richardson v. State
green
1 sentence2016Section 2 – The continuous crime doctrine is inapplicable. [10] Tipton also claims that he is entitled to relief pursuant to the continuous crime doctrine, which is “a rule of statutory construction and common law limited to situations where a defendant has been charged multiple times with the same 2 In Pierce, Justice Boehm noted, Although Campbell was explicitly said to be superseded in the Court’s opinion in Richardson, 717 N.E.2d at 49 n.36, only Justice Dickson and [then-Chief Justice Shepard] appear to have taken that view. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Peele v. Gillespie
green
1 sentence2001Id. 1 Here, the legislative intent is expressed in Indiana Code Section 85-88-1-8, which governs the procedure at pre-sentence hearings and provides in part: Before sentencing a person for a felony, the court must conduct a hearing to consider the facts and cireumstances relevant to sentencing ... [Including: * a * (8) if the court finds aggravating cireumstances or mitigating circumstances, a statement of the court's reasons for selecting the sentence that it imposes. ‘ (Emphasis added). our courts to articulate aggravating and mitigating cireumstances only in felonies. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Harris v. State
green
1 sentence2001Ind.Code § 35-38-1-3 (1998); Harris 659 N.E.2d at 527 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.