April 13, 2026

  • Print
Listen to this story

Subscriber Benefit

As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
0:00
0:00
Loading audio file, please wait.
  • 0.25
  • 0.50
  • 0.75
  • 1.00
  • 1.25
  • 1.50
  • 1.75
  • 2.00

Indiana Court of Appeals
Marco Antono Perez, II v. State of Indiana
No. 25A-CR-2377

Criminal. Appeal from the Vermillion Circuit Court, Judge Chris A. Wrede. Reverses and remands. Holds the trial court abused its discretion by ordering Perez to serve the entirety of his previously suspended sentence based on two technical probation violations — failing to attend scheduled appointments — given his otherwise successful compliance, lack of new offenses and mitigating circumstances; the court concludes the sanction was disproportionate and that lesser sanctions should be considered. Chief Judge Tavitas authored the opinion. Judges Weissmann and Foley concur. Appellant’s attorney: Aaron J. Spolarich, Bennett Boehning & Clary LLP, Lafayette, Indiana. Appellee’s attorneys: Office of the Indiana Attorney General.

Indiana Court of Appeals
William Ray Grimes v. State of Indiana
No. 25A-CR-1687

Criminal. Appeal from the Sullivan Superior Court, Judge Hugh R. Hunt. Affirms in part, reverses in part and remands. Holds Grimes’ convictions for both felony murder and conspiracy to commit burglary resulting in serious bodily injury constitute substantive double jeopardy under Wadle because the offenses were based on the same burglary and arose from a single transaction compressed in time, place, purpose and continuity; the court affirms the felony murder conviction but reverses the conspiracy conviction and remands with instructions to vacate that judgment and sentence. Chief Judge Tavitas authored the opinion. Judge Weissmann concurs. Judge Foley dissents, agreeing with the majority at Step 1 of the Wadle analysis but concluding at Step 2 that the offenses are not included because the charging instrument contains no ambiguity. He finds the conspiracy and felony murder charges rely on distinct factual allegations, so the same facts are not used to prove both offenses. Accordingly, he would find no double jeopardy violation. Appellant’s attorney: Christopher Taylor-Price, Taylor-Price Law, LLC, Indianapolis, Indiana. Appellee’s attorneys: Office of the Indiana Attorney General.

This content was created with the assistance of artificial intelligence and has been reviewed by an editor for accuracy.

Please enable JavaScript to view this content.

Get full access to The Indiana Lawyer! Subscribe Now

Get full access to The Indiana Lawyer! Subscribe Now

Get full access to The Indiana Lawyer! Upgrade Now

Get full access to The Indiana Lawyer! Upgrade Now

Get full access to The Indiana Lawyer!

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In

Your go-to for Indy business news.

Try us out for

$1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In

Your go-to for Indy business news.

Try us out for

$1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In

Your go-to for Indy business news.

Try us out for

$1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In