IN Supreme Court prepared for first oral arguments of new year

  • 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
This audio file is brought to you by
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
The Indiana Supreme Court bench. (IL file photo)

The Indiana Supreme Court’s first two oral arguments of 2024 will involve cases dealing with methamphetamine possession and juvenile adjudication.

The two cases will be heard Jan. 11.

The first case is Zachary A. Woodward v. State of Indiana, 23S-CR-315.

According to court records, Zachary Woodward was found guilty by jury of unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, Level 5 felony possession of methamphetamine and the habitual offender enhancement.

The Court of Appeals of Indiana vacated Woodward’s firearm conviction in 2022, but left the habitual offender enhancement in place.

On remand, the Decatur Superior Court attached a habitual offender enhancement to Woodward’s Level 5 felony possession of methamphetamine convictions and resentenced him to an aggregate 10-year term.

On his second appeal, the appellate court affirmed and found Woodward waived his argument that the possession of methamphetamine sentence should be based on a Level 6 felony.

The high court will be hearing arguments in the case at 9 a.m. in the Supreme Court Courtroom on the third floor of the Indiana Statehouse.

Following Woodward’s case, the court will be hearing oral arguments for B.K. and S.K. v. State of Indiana, 23S-JV-344 at 10 a.m. in the Supreme Court Courtroom.

B.K. and S.K. were adjudicated by Hendricks Superior Court after they damaged a Costco building and parking lot with fireworks.

Neither of the minors were placed on probation but were ordered to pay $28,750.70 jointly and severally in restitution.

They appealed but the appellate court affirmed in June, finding it could not say the court abused its discretion in finding B.K. was able to pay $250 per month and S.K. was able to pay $125 per month.

Please enable JavaScript to view this content.

{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining
{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining Article limit resets on
{{ count_down }}