Search Results

Indiana Court of Appeals
Zachary Clay Parksey v. State of Indiana
No. 25A-PC-2268

Appeal from the Vanderburgh Circuit Court, Judge Ryan D. Hatfield, Magistrate Celia M. Pauli. Zachary C. Parksey, after pleading guilty to Level 2 felony voluntary manslaughter, sought post-conviction relief, claiming he was not informed of the mandatory lifetime parole that accompanied his plea. The post-conviction court denied relief, asserting that no advisement of the parole requirement was necessary. The appellate court determined that mandatory lifetime parole is a direct consequence of the plea and that a defendant must be advised of it before pleading guilty. It found the post-conviction court had erred in its reliance on outdated case law, reversing the ruling and remanding the case for the necessary factual determinations regarding whether Parksey had been advised and whether this would have impacted his decision to plead guilty. Judge Altice authored the opinion, with Judges Brown and DeBoer concurring. Appellant appeared pro se. Appellee’s attorney: 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.

United States Court of Appeals
USA vs. Jonathan S. Rose
No. 24-1086

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, Judge Holly A. Brady. Before Circuit Judges Easterbrook, Kirsch and Pryor. The court vacated the district court’s order dismissing charges against Rose under 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(4) and remanded the case for further proceedings. The district court concluded that a historical context for §922(g)(4) was insufficient to apply a lifetime prohibition on firearm possession to those who have been committed for mental health reasons but are no longer deemed dangerous. The district court also emphasized the necessity for a detailed record regarding Rose’s mental state and the conditions of his prior commitment and release. It noted that determinations on current dangerousness must be made based on individualized proof, allowing both Rose and the prosecution to present evidence in light of recent rulings. Judge Easterbrook authored the opinion.

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

The following opinions were published on June 30 after The Indiana Lawyer’s deadline. 

Indiana Supreme Court
State of Indiana v. Augustine Armando Gomez Jr.
No. 25S-CR-14

Direct appeal from the Tippecanoe Superior Court, Judge Randy J. Williams. The trial court’s dismissal of misdemeanor and felony unlawful carrying charges against Gomez, based on alleged misapplication of statutory provisions regarding prior felony convictions, was reversed. The Supreme Court held that the trial court incorrectly found the charging information lacked sufficient certainty and erred in declaring the relevant statutes unconstitutional. The court confirmed that Gomez had adequate notice regarding the crimes charged and thus reinstated the charges. Justice Massa authored the opinion. Justice Slaughter concurred, Justice Molter concurred in result, and Chief Justice Rush partially concurred and dissented in part with a separate opinion, joined by Justice Goff. Chief Justice Rush concluded the handgun statute required the state to show Gomez’s Illinois conviction was substantially similar to an Indiana felony before it could support the Level 5 felony enhancement, and that the charging information failed to identify the necessary Indiana comparator. She would have allowed the misdemeanor handgun charge to proceed but would have affirmed dismissal of the Level 5 felony charge and resolved the case on statutory, rather than constitutional, grounds. Appellant’s attorney: Office of the Indiana Attorney General. Appellee’s attorney: Shay J. Hughes, Lafayette, Indiana.

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