Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowIndiana Supreme Court
Joseph E. Corcoran v. State of Indiana
24S-SD-222, 02S00-0508-PD-350
Stay of death sentence. Denies the State Public Defender Office’s two motions for permission to file two separate successive petitions for post-conviction relief and two accompanying motions to stay the execution of Joseph Corcoran. Finds the State Public Defender’s arguments are rehashing the debates between the majorities and the dissents in the previous state and federal opinions evaluating Corcoran’s competency and determines that is not an adequate basis for further delaying the execution. Also finds there is no substantial threshold showing that Corcoran is not competent to be executed. Justice Christopher Goff dissents with separate opinion in which Chief Justice Loretta Rush joins.
Indiana Court of Appeals
Denise Paul Hatch, Constable of the Center Township of Marion County Small Claims Court v. The Honorable Brenda A. Roper, Judge of the Center Township of Marion County Small Claims Court
24A-PL-1375
Civil plenary. Dismissess Constable of Marion County’s Center Township Small Claims Court Denise Hatch’s appeal of Marion Superior Court Judge Kurt Eisgruber’s judgment in favor of Judge Brenda Roper regarding Roper’s appointment of special constables to carry out Hatch’s duties. Finds that Hatch has since been removed from her public office by operation of law and her appellate claims are therefore moot. Also finds that though there exists a public interest exception to the mootness doctrine, it is inapplicable here because circumstances of Hatch’s case are unusual enough that they are not likely to recur. Attorney for appellant: Andrea Ciobanu. Attorneys for appellee: Attorney General Todd Rokita, Deputy Attorney General Evan Comer.
Edward Helvie, Jr. v. State of Indiana
24A-CR-1441
Criminal. Affirms Cass Superior Court Judge James Muehlhausen’s judgment that denied Edward Helvie’s request to plead guilty to only one of the charges against him without entering into a plea agreement and certified the issue for interlocutory appeal. Finds that Criminal Rule 3.3(C)(1) does not specifically address a situation where, as here, the defendant wishes to plead guilty to fewer than all of the charges absent an agreement with the state. Also finds that the rule’s failure to mention the scenario presented by this case means that it is excluded, not permitted. Attorney for appellant: Mark Leeman. Attorneys for appellee: Attorney General Todd Rokita, Deputy Attorney General Courtney Staton.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.