Belmares-Bautista v. State, No. 57A04-1003-CR-223, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 22, 2010)

When defendant made no claim that Spanish language documents he read erroneously translated a standard advisement of the right to counsel or that he did not understand the advice, he failed to show his waiver of counsel was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Forman v. Penn, No. 33A01-1007-CT-343, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 8, 2010)

When insurer intervened in tort suit and obtained summary judgment on its declaratory judgment claim it had no duty to defend, without a Trial Rule 54 determination by the trial judge of “no just reason for delay” and “an express direction for the entry of judgment” there was no appealable final judgment on the duty to defend issue.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Termination of Parent-Child Relationship of I.A., No. 62S01-1003-JV-148, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Oct. 5, 2010)

Evidence to terminate father’s parental rights was insufficient in this case in which the child had not been living with the father.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Hopper v. State, No. 13S01-1007-PC-399, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Sept. 29, 2010)

A defendant seeking to waive counsel and proceed pro se should not only be advised of the dangers of going to trial without a lawyer, as required by Faretta v. California, but should also “be informed that an attorney is usually more experienced in plea negotiations and better able to identify and evaluate any potential defenses and evidentiary or procedural problems in the prosecution’s case.”

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

State v. Hobbs, No. 19S01-1001-CR-10, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Sept. 30, 2010)

While defendant was being arrested in the restaurant where he worked, a dog sniff alert for drugs in his car parked in the restaurant lot justified a warrantless search of the car under the “automobile exception.”

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion