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.
5 Indiana opinions name it 1 courts 2016–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Prewitt v. Stategreen1 sentence2020See Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007). | 1 | 1 |
Christie v. Stategreen1 sentence2020Christie v. State, 939 N.E.2d 691, 694 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (citing Ind. Code § 35-38-2.6 -5); I.C. § 35-38-2-3(h)(3). [9] Hagerty’s argument relies on his interpretation of the effect of the trial court’s 2015 and 2016 modifications to his sentence. | 1 | 1 |
Holmes v. Stategreen1 sentence2016See Holmes v. State, 923 N.E.2d 479, 482-83 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). [14] Roberts admits that he violated the condition of his probation prohibiting him from accessing the internet. | 1 | 1 |
Runyon v. Stategreen1 sentence2016Next, he argues that the State had the burden to prove that he could pay his fees, caselaw tells us otherwise. “[I]t is the defendant probationer’s burden … to show facts related to an inability to pay.” Runyon v. State, 939 N.E.2d 613, 617 (Ind. 2010). | 1 | 1 |
A.S. v. Stategreen1 sentence2016See A.S. v. State, 929 N.E.2d 881, 887 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (court addressed waiver of counsel claim, notwithstanding issue was moot since child was no longer in detention, under mootness exception that claim was “question of great public importance and involve[d] issues likely to recur”) [13] Dullen alleges that his Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated because he did not make a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of his right to counsel during the evidentiary hearings addressing his Community Corrections violation. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.