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 At the time his probation was revoked, he was serving home detention.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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT