meaningful hearing in Indiana

2019“A nunc pro tunc competency determination is nevertheless permissible ‘whenever a court can conduct a meaningful hearing to evaluate retrospectively the competency of the defendant.’” Id. (quoting Maynard v. Boone, 468 F.3d 665, 674-675 (10th Cir. 2006)). [30] Haug acknowledges that the trial court adequately advised him of the dangers of self-representation and the benefits of counsel, repeatedly asked him to verify that he wished to continue representing himself, and advised him of his Dowell rights.

2017In the discussion section, So-rhaindo raised two issues: (1) whether the .State could bring a transfer motion under MI-42103 after having filed a similar transfer motion in MC-22791; and (2) in the event the trial court determined that the State was not barred from pursuing the turnover motion filled in MI-42103, the trial court should afford him a meaningful hearing pursuant to Adams v. State, 967 N.E.2d 568 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), to challenge the validity on the search.

2012See, e.g., Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 127 , 110 S.Ct. 975, 984 , 108 L.Ed.2d 100, 115 (1990); Mathews, 424 U.S. at 333 , 96 S.Ct. at 902 , 47 L.Ed.2d at 32 ; Goldberg, 397 U.S. at 267 , 90 S.Ct. at 1020 , 25 L.Ed.2d at 299 .

2012See, e.g., Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 127 , 110 S.Ct. 975, 984 , 108 L.Ed.2d 100, 115 (1990); Mathews, 424 U.S. at 333 , 96 S.Ct. at 902 , 47 L.Ed.2d at 32 ; Goldberg, 397 U.S. at 267 , 90 S.Ct. at 1020 , 25 L.Ed.2d at 299 .

2012See, e.g., Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 127 , 110 S.Ct. 975, 984 , 108 L.Ed.2d 100, 115 (1990); Mathews, 424 U.S. at 333 , 96 S.Ct. at 902 , 47 L.Ed.2d at 32 ; Goldberg, 397 U.S. at 267 , 90 S.Ct. at 1020 , 25 L.Ed.2d at 299 .

2012See, e.g., Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 127 , 110 S.Ct. 975, 984 , 108 L.Ed.2d 100, 115 (1990); Mathews, 424 U.S. at 333 , 96 S.Ct. at 902 , 47 L.Ed.2d at 32 ; Goldberg, 397 U.S. at 267 , 90 S.Ct. at 1020 , 25 L.Ed.2d at 299 .

2004Any failure of [counsel's] stewardship was the cause of a decree of termination."); In re Moseley, 34 Wash.App. 179 , 660 P.2d 315 (1983) (whether it appears from the record that attorney was not effective in providing a meaningful hearing) 4 .

2004Any failure of [counsel's] stewardship was the cause of a decree of termination."); In re Moseley, 34 Wash.App. 179 , 660 P.2d 315 (1983) (whether it appears from the record that attorney was not effective in providing a meaningful hearing) 4 .

2004Juvenile Dept. of Multnomah County v. Geist, 310 Or. 176 , 796 P.2d 1193 (1990) {addresses whether the proceeding was fundamentally fair); In re Interest of J.C., Jr., 781 S.W.2d 226 (Mo.Ct.App.1989) (whether the attorney was effective 'in providing his client with a meaningful hearing based on the record.); In re Adoption of T.M.F., 392 Pa.Super. 598 , 573 A.2d 1035, 1044 (1990) (fundamental fairness: "whether on the whole the parties received a fair hearing, the proof supports the decree by the standard of clear and convincing evidence, and upon review.

2004Juvenile Dept. of Multnomah County v. Geist, 310 Or. 176 , 796 P.2d 1193 (1990) {addresses whether the proceeding was fundamentally fair); In re Interest of J.C., Jr., 781 S.W.2d 226 (Mo.Ct.App.1989) (whether the attorney was effective 'in providing his client with a meaningful hearing based on the record.); In re Adoption of T.M.F., 392 Pa.Super. 598 , 573 A.2d 1035, 1044 (1990) (fundamental fairness: "whether on the whole the parties received a fair hearing, the proof supports the decree by the standard of clear and convincing evidence, and upon review.

2004Juvenile Dept. of Multnomah County v. Geist, 310 Or. 176 , 796 P.2d 1193 (1990) {addresses whether the proceeding was fundamentally fair); In re Interest of J.C., Jr., 781 S.W.2d 226 (Mo.Ct.App.1989) (whether the attorney was effective 'in providing his client with a meaningful hearing based on the record.); In re Adoption of T.M.F., 392 Pa.Super. 598 , 573 A.2d 1035, 1044 (1990) (fundamental fairness: "whether on the whole the parties received a fair hearing, the proof supports the decree by the standard of clear and convincing evidence, and upon review.

1997As a result, we concluded that "a more meaningful inquiry into a defendant's ability to pay restitution would take place at the time, the State seeks to revoke his or her probation because of the defendant’s failure to pay.” Id. at 3 n. 2.

1975A similar analysis was employed by the court in Hargraves v. Brackett Stripping Machine Company (E.D.Tenn. 1970), 317 F. Supp. 676 , in passing upon an assertion *345 strikingly similar to that of appellant-Toth.