 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Cox v. State, No. 49A02-0510-CR-960,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, SECOND DISTRICT, July 13, 2006, Decided , July 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since defendant admitted to violating conditions of probation, due process rights were not violated where no evidence was presented at revocation hearing. Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(g)(3) permitted order that defendant's suspended sentence be executed despite fact it brought total executed time to more than 10-year cap provided for in plea agreement.
|
|||||
| Ponciano v. State, No. 49A02-0507-CR-657,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, SECOND DISTRICT, July 13, 2006, Decided , July 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Ind. Code § 35-42-2-2(c)(3) did not violate Proportionality Clause of Ind. Const. art. I, § 16, because it more severely punished act of shooting from vehicle. Ind. Code § 35-42-2-2 was not unconstitutionally vague as applied, as victim's home was dwelling or residence, and whether it was "place where people are likely to gather" was irrelevant.
|
|||||
| Ransom v. State, No. 49A02-0507-CR-659,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, SECOND DISTRICT, July 13, 2006, Decided , July 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was sufficient to support battery and confinement convictions, but because there was a reasonable possibility the jury based the confinement conviction on the use of a handgun, appellate court downgraded the battery conviction to exclude the weapon element. State's failure to disclose the victim's prior arrest was not a Brady violation.
|
|||||
| Smith v. Carrasco, No. 46A04-0602-CV-85,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FOURTH DISTRICT, July 13, 2006, Decided , July 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because of the volatile topic of an inmate's papers on anarchy and the risks they posed to the security and order of the prison, the prison employees did not materially burden the inmate's Ind. Const. art. I, § 9 right to engage in political expression; consequently, pursuant to Ind. Code § 34-58-1-2, the inmate's claim was frivolous.
|
|||||
| Smith v. Huckins, No. 46A04-0512-CV-733,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FOURTH DISTRICT, July 13, 2006, Decided , July 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Reviewing de novo, the court determined that the trial court properly dismissed the inmate's pro se civil rights lawsuit, pursuant to Ind. Code § 34-58-1-2, because the inmate had not set forth sufficient facts supporting the allegations that his constitutional rights were violated. Restrictions under Ind. Code § 34-58-2-1 were warranted.
|
|||||
| Smith v. Maximum Control Facility, No. 46A03-0512-CV-609,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, THIRD DISTRICT, July 13, 2006, Decided , July 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a prisoner sought under Ind. Code § 5-14-3-9(e) to compel a prison facility to allow him to inspect and copy records, it was error to dismiss his complaint as frivolous under Ind. Code § 34-58-1-2. Ind. Code § 5-14-3-3(a) provided that anyone could inspect and copy public records, and the prisoner's motivation was irrelevant and immaterial.
|
|||||
| Smith v. McKee, No. 46A03-0510-CV-487,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, THIRD DISTRICT, July 13, 2006, Decided , July 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court's order dismissing the inmate's claims after finding they were not claims upon which relief could be granted complied with Ind. Code § 34-58-1-3. The inmate's complaint contained sufficient allegations to support the inmate's excessive force claim, as the allegations went beyond the infliction of corporal punishment as discipline.
|
|||||
| Mansfield v. State, No. 49A02-0412-PC-1028,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, SECOND DISTRICT, July 14, 2006, Decided , July 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although it was error for a postconviction court to deny an inmate's petition based on laches when the State had not pleaded it, the inmate was not entitled to relief. He had presented no evidence other than that his guilty plea record was missing and could not be reconstructed; he had not established that he had not been advised of his rights.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
