Lagrone v State, No. 49A05-1203-CR-135, __ U.S. __ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 26, 2013).

Police placement of a GPS device in a package opened by UPS did not violate the Fourth Amendment, but police use of a “parcel wire” to monitor the opening of the package once defendant had taken it into his home was an illegal search under the Fourth Amendment; police could not enter the home without a warrant under the “exigent circumstances” exception because the exigent circumstances – the wire’s alert that the package was opening – were the result of their Fourth Amendment violation.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Crider v. State, No. 91S05-1206-CR-306, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Mar. 21, 2013).

Defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal could not prevent his challenging on appeal the trial court’s erroneous imposition of consecutive habitual offender enhancements not agreed to in the bargain.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Dye v. State, No. 20S04-1201-CR-5, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Mar. 21, 2013).

“[T]he State is not . . . permitted to support [an] habitual offender finding with a conviction that arose out of the same res gestae that was the source of the conviction used to prove [defendant] was a serious violent felon.”

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Bethea v. State, No. 18S05-1206-PC-304, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Mar. 12, 2013).

Overrules cases holding that an element of a charge dismissed by plea agreement cannot be used as an aggravating sentencing factor, and holds that instead elements or conduct involved in dismissed charges may be used in sentencing unless the parties provide otherwise in their plea agreement.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Heaton v. State, No. 48S02-1206-CR-350, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Mar. 5, 2013).

A probation revocation court must apply the preponderance standard, not probable cause, in determining whether the state has proved the defendant committed a new offense.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion