Indiana Court of Appeals
Charles A. Edmonson v. State of Indiana
Post conviction. Affirms the post-conviction court’s denial of Charles Edmonson’s petition for post-conviction relief because Indiana law did not require him to be advised of all possible collateral consequences of his guilty plea for that plea to have been entered voluntarily.
Marta Deleon v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Criminal. Affirms Marta Deleon’s conviction of Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass, finding the state presented sufficient evidence to support the conviction.
George Landy v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Criminal. Affirms in part, reverses in part and remands George Landy’s convictions of Level 6 felony resisting law enforcement, and misdemeanor counts of criminal mischief, leaving the scene of an accident, and unauthorized entry of a motor vehicle. His conviction and sentencing for Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement and Class B misdemeanor leaving the scene of an accident were vacated due to double-jeopardy violations. His conviction and sentencing for Level 6 felony resisting law enforcement, Class A misdemeanor criminal mischief, a separate count of Class B misdemeanor leaving the scene of an accident, and Class B misdemeanor unauthorized entry of a motor vehicle stand.
J.B. v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development and Employer (mem. dec.)
Agency Action. Affirms the Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development’s denial of J.B.’s request for unemployment benefits. The board’s findings and conclusions were not clearly erroneous.
Doyle Burton v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Criminal. Affirms the trial court’s denial of Burton’s motion to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to a warrantless vehicle search. The automobile exception to the search warrant requirement applied.
Daniel Mola v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Post conviction. Affirms the post-conviction court’s denial of Daniel Mola’s petition for post-conviction relief. The post-conviction court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Mola’s request to hire a toxicologist at public expense; he waived his argument regarding the post-conviction court’s denial of his request to admit a medication guide for Prozac because he did not properly support his argument as required in the Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure; he did not demonstrate he received ineffective assistance of trial or appellate counsel; and he is not entitled to review of the Court of Appeals' decision in his direct appeal.