ILNews

Justices accept case that divided COA on state's abilty to appeal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has taken a case in which the state appealed the grant of a motion to correct error. A split Indiana Court of Appeals concluded that the state could only appeal a denial of a motion to correct error.

Elvis Holtsclaw moved to suppress the chemical tests that supported his drunk-driving charges. The trial court granted the motion; the state then filed a motion to correct error. The trial court denied that motion.

Judges L. Mark Bailey and Carr Darden relied on the language of Indiana Code 35-38-4-2 to dismiss the state’s appeal. Judge John Baker dissented, writing that nothing in that statute stated or implied that Appellate Rule 9 shouldn’t apply to appeals initiated by the state.

The case is State of Indiana v. Elvis Holtsclaw, No. 49S02-1205-CR-264.

The justices also denied transfer to 15 cases, including Augustus Mendenhall v. State of Indiana, No. 29A02-1104-CR-353, involving the man who attacked Rep. Ed DeLaney, R-Indianapolis, in 2009. The judges found Augustus Mendenhall’s Class A felony conviction of robbery resulting in serious bodily injury and Class B felony conviction of aggravated battery violate Indiana’s prohibition on double jeopardy. They ordered the robbery conviction be reduced to a Class C felony.


The Supreme Court also declined to take Bei Bei Shuai v. State of Indiana, No. 49A02-1106-CR-486, in which Bei Bei Shuai appealed her murder and attempted feticide charges.

 

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. Hey 2 psychs is never enough, since it is statistically unlikely that three will ever agree on anything! New study admits this pseudo science is about as scientifically valid as astrology ... done by via fortune cookie ....John Ioannidis, professor of health research and policy at Stanford University, said the study was impressive and that its results had been eagerly awaited by the scientific community. “Sadly, the picture it paints - a 64% failure rate even among papers published in the best journals in the field - is not very nice about the current status of psychological science in general, and for fields like social psychology it is just devastating,” he said. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/study-delivers-bleak-verdict-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results

  2. Indianapolis Bar Association President John Trimble and I are on the same page, but it is a very large page with plenty of room for others to join us. As my final Res Gestae article will express in more detail in a few days, the Great Recession hastened a fundamental and permanent sea change for the global legal service profession. Every state bar is facing the same existential questions that thrust the medical profession into national healthcare reform debates. The bench, bar, and law schools must comprehensively reconsider how we define the practice of law and what it means to access justice. If the three principals of the legal service profession do not recast the vision of their roles and responsibilities soon, the marketplace will dictate those roles and responsibilities without regard for the public interests that the legal profession professes to serve.

  3. I have met some highly placed bureaucrats who vehemently disagree, Mr. Smith. This is not your father's time in America. Some ideas are just too politically incorrect too allow spoken, says those who watch over us for the good of their concept of order.

  4. Lets talk about this without forgetting that Lawyers, too, have FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION

  5. Baer filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit on April 30 2015. When will this be decided? How many more appeals does this guy have? Unbelievable this is dragging on like this.

ADVERTISEMENT