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.
7 Indiana opinions name it 1 courts 2011–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Creech v. Stategreen2 sentences2017Id. at 77 (trial court advised the defendant at the close of the sentencing hearing that he retained the right to appeal which did not alter the defendant’s knowing and voluntary waiver at the time he changed his plea). 2016See Creech 887 N.E.2d at 77 (explaining by the time the trial court erroneously advised the defendant of the possibility of appeal, the defendant had already pleaded guilty and received the benefit of his bargain, therefore being told at the close of the sentencing hearing that he could appeal presumably had no effect on his decision to enter the plea agreement). [8] Here, the plea agreement was referenced repeatedly at the change of plea hearing, and McCampbell acknowledged having read and signed it. | 2 | 6 |
Ricci v. Stategreen1 sentence2017However, if the advisement comes before the defendant receives the benefit of his bargain and no one contradicts or corrects the misstatement, then “we may confidently say that the trial court accepted the plea agreement, and the prosecuting attorney, the defense attorney, and [the defendant] entered into the plea agreement with the understanding that [the defendant] retained the right to appeal his sentence.” Ricci v. State, 894 N.E.2d 1089, 1093-94 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), trans. denied. [7] Here, the trial court advised Caroway he had the right to appeal the length of his sentence before Carow | 1 | 1 |
Anglemyer v. Stategreen1 sentence2013At the close of the sentencing hearing, when prompted by the court reporter regarding fines and costs, the trial court added: “I find no, I find no mitigating circumstances, but a lot of aggravating.” (Tr. 53.) “So long as the sentence is within the statutory range, it is subject to review only for abuse of discretion.” Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 490 (Ind. 2007), clarified on other grounds, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007) (Anglemyer II). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Anglemyer v. State
green
1 sentence2013At the close of the sentencing hearing, when prompted by the court reporter regarding fines and costs, the trial court added: “I find no, I find no mitigating circumstances, but a lot of aggravating.” (Tr. 53.) “So long as the sentence is within the statutory range, it is subject to review only for abuse of discretion.” Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 490 (Ind. 2007), clarified on other grounds, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007) (Anglemyer II). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.