ILNews

High court takes 2 cases

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has taken a counterfeiting case and a case involving credit time that presents an issue of first impression, according to its latest transfer order.

The justices took two cases for the week ending Dec. 23 - An-Hung Yao and Yu-Ting Lin v. State of Indiana, No. 35S02-1112-CR-704, and Douglas Cottingham v. State of Indiana, No. 06S01-1112-CR-703.

In Yao, the Indiana Court of Appeals ordered counterfeiting and theft charges dropped against An-Hung Yao and Yu-Ting Lin, of Houston, because the Indiana trial court lacked territorial jurisdiction. The appellate court noted that there has only been a small number of cases in Indiana to address territorial jurisdiction, and all either held that there is no serious evidentiary dispute that Indiana has territorial jurisdiction or there is a serious evidentiary dispute requiring a jury determination.

“However, given that Indiana Code section 35-34-1-4(a)(10) provides that the trial court may dismiss an information if there is a jurisdictional impediment to the prosecution, we believe the converse of the rule announced in Ortiz (v. State, 766 N.E.2d 370, 374 (Ind. 2002)) is also true: if there is no serious evidentiary dispute that Indiana does not have territorial jurisdiction, the trial court may dismiss the information as a matter of law and the issue need not be submitted to the jury,” wrote Chief Judge Margret Robb.

In Cottingham, Douglas Cottingham appealed the order that he serve the remainder of his sentence incarcerated after he admitted to a probation violation. At the time his probation was revoked, he was serving home detention. The Court of Appeals affirmed, but it addressed his argument for recalculation of his credit time because it is an issue of first impression regarding recent amendments to Indiana Code 35-38-2.6-6. The statute was amended in 2010 to remove the exclusion of credit time for those in home detention.

The appellate court applied the doctrine of amelioration to the issue of good time credit for Cottingham while he was on home detention. The judges remanded for the trial court to determine his credit class for good time credit purposes during home detention, to calculate the good time credit to which he is entitled, and to adjust his sentence accordingly.

The justices denied transfer to 25 cases.  

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Contact Lea Shelemey attorney in porter county Indiana. She just helped us win our case...she is awesome...

  2. We won!!!! It was a long expensive battle but we did it. I just wanted people to know it is possible. And if someone can point me I. The right direction to help change the way the courts look as grandparents as only grandparents. The courts assume the parent does what is in the best interest of the child...and the court is wrong. A lot of the time it is spite and vindictiveness that separates grandparents and grandchildren. It should not have been this long and hard and expensive...Something needs to change...

  3. Typo on # of Indiana counties

  4. The Supreme Court is very proud that they are Giving a billion dollar public company from Texas who owns Odyssey a statewide monopoly which consultants have said is not unnecessary but worse they have already cost Hoosiers well over $100 MILLION, costing tens of millions every year and Odyssey is still not connected statewide which is in violation of state law. The Supreme Court is using taxpayer money and Odyssey to compete against a Hoosier company who has the only system in Indiana that is connected statewide and still has 40 of the 82 counties despite the massive spending and unnecessary attacks

  5. Here's a recent resource regarding steps that should be taken for removal from the IN sex offender registry. I haven't found anything as comprehensive as of yet. Hopefully this is helpful - http://www.chjrlaw.com/removal-indiana-sex-offender-registry/

ADVERTISEMENT