<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Indiana Criminal Law &#187; Indiana Court of Appeals</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.incrimlaw.org/category/published-opinions/iac/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.incrimlaw.org</link>
	<description>Created &#38; maintained by Youngcourt Law Office, Huron, Indiana.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Mar 2010 19:24:55 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD) &#8211; D&#8217;s failure to deliver request to Tr.Ct. and prosecutor</title>
		<link>http://www.incrimlaw.org/2010/03/01/1119/interstate-agreement-on-detainers-iad-ds-failure-to-deliver-request-to-tr-ct-and-prosecutor/</link>
		<comments>http://www.incrimlaw.org/2010/03/01/1119/interstate-agreement-on-detainers-iad-ds-failure-to-deliver-request-to-tr-ct-and-prosecutor/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Mar 2010 19:22:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Indiana Court of Appeals]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://incrimlaw.org/?p=1119</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Bowling v. State, 68A05-0906-CR-306
5th Dist., 12-30-09, Ind.App.
Attorney: Dale W. Arnett
Holding:          Under the IAD, a defendant must be brought to trial within 180 days after he has “caused to be delivered” to the prosecutor and the appropriate court written notice of where he is incarcerated and of [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.incrimlaw.org/2010/03/01/1119/interstate-agreement-on-detainers-iad-ds-failure-to-deliver-request-to-tr-ct-and-prosecutor/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Entering controlled area of airport with weapon &#8211; insufficient evidence</title>
		<link>http://www.incrimlaw.org/2010/03/01/1111/entering-controlled-area-of-airport-with-weapon-insufficient-evidence/</link>
		<comments>http://www.incrimlaw.org/2010/03/01/1111/entering-controlled-area-of-airport-with-weapon-insufficient-evidence/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Mar 2010 19:18:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Indiana Court of Appeals]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://incrimlaw.org/?p=1111</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Kribs v. State, 49A05-0904-CR-225
5th Dist., 12-14-09, Ind.App.
Attorney: Joel M. Schumm
Holding:          State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant knowingly or intentionally entered a controlled area of an airport with a weapon or explosive, in violation of I.C. 35-47-6-1.3.  Following bench trial that resulted [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.incrimlaw.org/2010/03/01/1111/entering-controlled-area-of-airport-with-weapon-insufficient-evidence/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Operating vehicle with suspended license &#8211; motor scooter</title>
		<link>http://www.incrimlaw.org/2010/03/01/1108/operating-vehicle-with-suspended-license-motor-scooter/</link>
		<comments>http://www.incrimlaw.org/2010/03/01/1108/operating-vehicle-with-suspended-license-motor-scooter/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Mar 2010 19:17:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Indiana Court of Appeals]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://incrimlaw.org/?p=1108</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Annis v. State, 76A03-0908-CR-369
3rd Dist., 12-09-09, Ind.App.
Attorney: John Pinnow
Holding:          For purposes of I.C. 9-30-10, a motor vehicle is a vehicle that is self-propelled but the definition does not include a motorized bicycle.  I.C. 9-13-2-105(d).  A motorized bicycle is defined as a vehicle with two [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.incrimlaw.org/2010/03/01/1108/operating-vehicle-with-suspended-license-motor-scooter/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Operating while intoxicated (OWI) &#8211; proof of endangerment required</title>
		<link>http://www.incrimlaw.org/2010/03/01/1105/operating-while-intoxicated-owi-proof-of-endangerment-required/</link>
		<comments>http://www.incrimlaw.org/2010/03/01/1105/operating-while-intoxicated-owi-proof-of-endangerment-required/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Mar 2010 19:16:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Indiana Court of Appeals]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://incrimlaw.org/?p=1105</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Outlaw v. State, 49A02-0904-CR-340
2nd Dist., 12-18-09, Ind.App.
Attorney: Barbara J. Simmons
Holding:          State is required to submit proof of &#8220;endangerment&#8221; that goes beyond mere intoxication to obtain a conviction for Class A misdemeanor OWI.  I.C. 9-30-5-2(b) requires State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant &#8220;operate[d] [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.incrimlaw.org/2010/03/01/1105/operating-while-intoxicated-owi-proof-of-endangerment-required/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obstruction of justice &#8211; sufficient evidence</title>
		<link>http://www.incrimlaw.org/2010/03/01/1102/obstruction-of-justice-sufficient-evidence/</link>
		<comments>http://www.incrimlaw.org/2010/03/01/1102/obstruction-of-justice-sufficient-evidence/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Mar 2010 19:15:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Indiana Court of Appeals]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://incrimlaw.org/?p=1102</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Howell v. State, 49A04-0903-CR-172
4th Dist., 12-09-09, Ind.App.
Attorney: Robert D. King, Jr.
Holding:          Evidence was sufficient to support Defendant&#8217;s conviction for obstruction of justice even though the email messages that constituted “false records” for the basis of the charge did not contain false or inaccurate information.  I.C. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.incrimlaw.org/2010/03/01/1102/obstruction-of-justice-sufficient-evidence/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Child seduction &#8211; sufficient evidence D was &#8220;custodian&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.incrimlaw.org/2010/03/01/1099/child-seduction-sufficient-evidence-d-was-custodian/</link>
		<comments>http://www.incrimlaw.org/2010/03/01/1099/child-seduction-sufficient-evidence-d-was-custodian/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Mar 2010 19:14:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Indiana Court of Appeals]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://incrimlaw.org/?p=1099</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Gellenbeck v. State, 79A02-0903-CR-253
2nd Dist., 12-30-09, Ind.App.
Attorney: Bruce W. Graham
Holding:          State presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that Defendant was complaining witness&#8217;s (CW&#8217;s) custodian for purposes of child seduction statute.  As used in I.C. 35-42-4-7, &#8220;custodian&#8221; means any person who resides with [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.incrimlaw.org/2010/03/01/1099/child-seduction-sufficient-evidence-d-was-custodian/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>D required to register as sex offender for 1984 Arizona conviction</title>
		<link>http://www.incrimlaw.org/2010/03/01/1096/d-required-to-register-as-sex-offender-for-1984-arizona-conviction/</link>
		<comments>http://www.incrimlaw.org/2010/03/01/1096/d-required-to-register-as-sex-offender-for-1984-arizona-conviction/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Mar 2010 19:12:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Indiana Court of Appeals]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://incrimlaw.org/?p=1096</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Herron v. State, 55A05-0906-CV-341
5th Dist., 12-29-09, Ind.App.
Attorney: Steven C. Litz
Holding:          Defendant, who was required by Arizona to register as a sex offender for life when he committed his offense in 1983, is a &#8220;sex offender&#8221; who is required to register for life under Indiana&#8217;s Sex Offender [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.incrimlaw.org/2010/03/01/1096/d-required-to-register-as-sex-offender-for-1984-arizona-conviction/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sex offender registry &#8211; failure to report address change</title>
		<link>http://www.incrimlaw.org/2010/03/01/1093/sex-offender-registry-failure-to-report-address-change/</link>
		<comments>http://www.incrimlaw.org/2010/03/01/1093/sex-offender-registry-failure-to-report-address-change/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Mar 2010 19:11:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Indiana Court of Appeals]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://incrimlaw.org/?p=1093</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Branch v. State, 82A04-0905-CR-265
4th Dist, 12-17-09, Ind.App.
Attorney: David Shaw
Holding:          There was sufficient evidence to support Defendant&#8217;s conviction for failing to register as a sex offender.  If a sex offender changes his principal address, he must report in person to the local law enforcement authority his [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.incrimlaw.org/2010/03/01/1093/sex-offender-registry-failure-to-report-address-change/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sex offenses &#8211; registration period does not start anew based on new offense</title>
		<link>http://www.incrimlaw.org/2010/03/01/1090/sex-offenses-registration-period-does-not-start-anew-based-on-new-offense/</link>
		<comments>http://www.incrimlaw.org/2010/03/01/1090/sex-offenses-registration-period-does-not-start-anew-based-on-new-offense/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Mar 2010 19:10:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Indiana Court of Appeals]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://incrimlaw.org/?p=1090</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Greer and Maggi v. Buss, 49A02-0903-CV-243
2nd Dist., 12-17-09, Ind.App.
Attorney: Gavin Rose; Kenneth Falk
Holding:          Trial court erred by finding that a pre-2008 statute required the ten-year sex offender registration period to start anew if the sex offender was convicted of a new offense.  Before 2008, I.C. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.incrimlaw.org/2010/03/01/1090/sex-offenses-registration-period-does-not-start-anew-based-on-new-offense/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Advisory sentence for nonsupport conviction inappropriate</title>
		<link>http://www.incrimlaw.org/2010/03/01/1084/advisory-sentence-for-nonsupport-conviction-inappropriate/</link>
		<comments>http://www.incrimlaw.org/2010/03/01/1084/advisory-sentence-for-nonsupport-conviction-inappropriate/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Mar 2010 19:00:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Indiana Court of Appeals]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://incrimlaw.org/?p=1084</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Sanquenetti v. State, 61A01-0907-CR-344
1st Dist., 12-17-09, Ind.App.
Attorney: Daniel M. Grove
Holding:          Advisory sentence of four years for Defendant&#8217;s class C felony nonsupport of a dependent conviction was inappropriate in light of nature of offense and her character.  Regarding nature of offense, Court noted that there is [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.incrimlaw.org/2010/03/01/1084/advisory-sentence-for-nonsupport-conviction-inappropriate/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

