<?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; Uncategorized</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.incrimlaw.org/category/uncategorized/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>Speedy trial &#8211; C.R. 4(B) violation; pro se motion before initial hearing</title>
		<link>http://www.incrimlaw.org/2010/02/26/1046/speedy-trial-c-r-4b-violation-pro-se-motion-before-initial-hearing/</link>
		<comments>http://www.incrimlaw.org/2010/02/26/1046/speedy-trial-c-r-4b-violation-pro-se-motion-before-initial-hearing/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Feb 2010 19:11:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Indiana Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://incrimlaw.org/?p=1046</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Robinson v. State, 20A04-0909-CR-530 4th Dist., 12-29-09, Ind.App. Attorney: Peter D. Todd

Holding:          Trial court erred in denying Defendant&#8217;s motion for discharge after State failed to bring him to trial within seventy days after receiving notice of his properly filed pro se motion for early trial pursuant [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.incrimlaw.org/2010/02/26/1046/speedy-trial-c-r-4b-violation-pro-se-motion-before-initial-hearing/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Expedited appeal of placement &#8211; juvenile delinquency case</title>
		<link>http://www.incrimlaw.org/2009/07/31/779/expedited-appeal-of-placement-juvenile-delinquency-case/</link>
		<comments>http://www.incrimlaw.org/2009/07/31/779/expedited-appeal-of-placement-juvenile-delinquency-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 Jul 2009 13:49:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://incrimlaw.org/?p=779</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In re D.M., 45A05-0905-JV-239                
5th Dist., 06-10-09, Ind.App. 907 N.E.2d 582
Attorney: Elizabeth G. Tegarden

Holding:               In expedited interlocutory appeal pursuant to Appellate Rule 14.1, Indiana Department of [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.incrimlaw.org/2009/07/31/779/expedited-appeal-of-placement-juvenile-delinquency-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Speedy trial &#8211; delays caused by assigned counsel attributable to defendant</title>
		<link>http://www.incrimlaw.org/2009/04/27/552/speedy-trial-delays-caused-by-assigned-counsel-attributable-to-defendant/</link>
		<comments>http://www.incrimlaw.org/2009/04/27/552/speedy-trial-delays-caused-by-assigned-counsel-attributable-to-defendant/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Apr 2009 18:40:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://incrimlaw.org/?p=552</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Vermont v. Brillon, 08-88          
03-09-09, U.S.

Holding:          The Vermont Supreme Court erred in finding that a three-year delay between charges and trial violated the Sixth Amendment. Some of the facts a court should weigh when determining whether there [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.incrimlaw.org/2009/04/27/552/speedy-trial-delays-caused-by-assigned-counsel-attributable-to-defendant/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>CALIFORNIA JUDGE RULES LCN DNA ANALYSIS INADMISSIBLE DUE TO LACK OF GENERAL ACCEPTANCE IN SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY</title>
		<link>http://www.incrimlaw.org/2009/03/25/449/california-judge-rules-lcn-dna-analysis-inadmissible-due-to-lack-of-general-acceptance-in-scientific-community/</link>
		<comments>http://www.incrimlaw.org/2009/03/25/449/california-judge-rules-lcn-dna-analysis-inadmissible-due-to-lack-of-general-acceptance-in-scientific-community/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:24:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://incrimlaw.org/?p=449</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[People vs. Hector Espino, NA076620
March 18, 2009
Attorney Jennifer Friedman


A California Judge made an oral ruling that LCN (Low Count Number) DNA analysis results were inadmissible due to the fact that there is no general acceptance in the scientific community as to the procedures to be employed, the interpretation of results, and the statistics that can [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.incrimlaw.org/2009/03/25/449/california-judge-rules-lcn-dna-analysis-inadmissible-due-to-lack-of-general-acceptance-in-scientific-community/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Present sense impression &#8211; telephone conversation</title>
		<link>http://www.incrimlaw.org/2009/02/25/144/present-sense-impression-telephone-conversation/</link>
		<comments>http://www.incrimlaw.org/2009/02/25/144/present-sense-impression-telephone-conversation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:57:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://incrimlaw.org/?p=144</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Amos v. State, 49A02-0803-CR-229
2nd Dist., 11-25-08, Ind.App. 
Attorney: Ellen O&#8217;Connor
Holding:          Trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a victim&#8217;s statement under the present sense impression hearsay exception.  Indiana Rule of Evidence 803(1) allows into evidence a statement that describes or explains the event [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.incrimlaw.org/2009/02/25/144/present-sense-impression-telephone-conversation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Guilty plea precludes PCR on claim of actual innocence</title>
		<link>http://www.incrimlaw.org/2009/02/25/140/guilty-plea-precludes-pcr-on-claim-of-actual-innocence/</link>
		<comments>http://www.incrimlaw.org/2009/02/25/140/guilty-plea-precludes-pcr-on-claim-of-actual-innocence/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:54:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Indiana Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://incrimlaw.org/?p=140</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Norris v. State, 43S03-0807-CR-379
11-12-08, Ind. 
Attorney: Nancy A. McClaslin
Holding:  A guilty plea may not be challenged in post-conviction proceedings by a claim of newly discovered evidence regarding the events that constituted the crime.  Indiana requires a factual basis for a guilty plea, and judge may not accept a guilty plea while a defendant [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.incrimlaw.org/2009/02/25/140/guilty-plea-precludes-pcr-on-claim-of-actual-innocence/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>50-year sentence for child molesting inappropriate</title>
		<link>http://www.incrimlaw.org/2008/11/20/67/50-year-sentence-for-child-molesting-inappropriate/</link>
		<comments>http://www.incrimlaw.org/2008/11/20/67/50-year-sentence-for-child-molesting-inappropriate/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 12:57:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://incrimlaw.org/?p=67</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Mishler v. State, 20A03-0712-CR-577
3rd Dist., 10-23-08, Ind.App. 894 N.E.2d 1095
Attorney: Juan Garcia, Jr.

Holding:         Fifty-year aggregate sentence for two class A felony child molesting convictions was inappropriate in light of nature of offenses and Defendant&#8217;s character.  Defendant, who was living with CW, committed at least two episodes [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.incrimlaw.org/2008/11/20/67/50-year-sentence-for-child-molesting-inappropriate/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Probation revocation &#8211; denial of due process</title>
		<link>http://www.incrimlaw.org/2008/11/20/64/probation-revocation-denial-of-due-process/</link>
		<comments>http://www.incrimlaw.org/2008/11/20/64/probation-revocation-denial-of-due-process/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 12:55:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://incrimlaw.org/?p=64</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Tillberry v. State, 49A05-0803-CR-145
5th Dist., 10-31-08, Ind.App. 895 N.E.2d 411
Attorney: Timothy J. Burns

Holding:         Both federal law and I.C. 35-38-2-3 require trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing, the State to prove probation violation by a preponderance of the evidence, and requires evidence be presented in open court [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.incrimlaw.org/2008/11/20/64/probation-revocation-denial-of-due-process/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Revoking probation prior to its commencement is proper</title>
		<link>http://www.incrimlaw.org/2008/11/20/63/revoking-probation-prior-to-its-commencement-is-proper/</link>
		<comments>http://www.incrimlaw.org/2008/11/20/63/revoking-probation-prior-to-its-commencement-is-proper/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 12:54:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://incrimlaw.org/?p=63</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Baker v. State, 85A04-0807-CR-392
4th Dist.; 10-15-08, Ind.App. 894 N.E.2d 594
Attorney: Craig Persinger


Holding:         Trial court did not err in revoking Defendant&#8217;s probation while Defendant was serving his executed sentence.  Trial court may revoke probation before the defendant enters the probationary phase of his sentence.  Ashba v. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.incrimlaw.org/2008/11/20/63/revoking-probation-prior-to-its-commencement-is-proper/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Position of trust aggravator proper in neglect of dependent sentence</title>
		<link>http://www.incrimlaw.org/2008/11/20/53/position-of-trust-aggravator-proper-in-neglect-of-dependent-sentence/</link>
		<comments>http://www.incrimlaw.org/2008/11/20/53/position-of-trust-aggravator-proper-in-neglect-of-dependent-sentence/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 12:49:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Indiana Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://incrimlaw.org/?p=53</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Robinson v. State, 26A01-0804-CR-178
1st Dist.; 10-15-08, Ind.App. 894 N.E.2d 1038 
Attorney: Lisa Moody


Holding:         Imposition of advisory sentence, based on Defendant&#8217;s position of trust with the victim, was appropriate.  It is proper for trial courts to consider the particularized individual circumstances of the crime as an aggravating [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.incrimlaw.org/2008/11/20/53/position-of-trust-aggravator-proper-in-neglect-of-dependent-sentence/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

