Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Derek L. Moore v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided April 22, 2015No. 49A05-1408-CR-398Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partRobb, Judge

[38] I agree with the trial court that the 2014 amendments to Indiana Code section 35-38-1-17 are not retroactive and that, absent the prosecutor’s approval, the trial court had no authority to entertain Moore’s petition for sentence modification. Therefore, I respectfully dissent from that part of the majority’s decision holding otherwise.

[39] I do not agree that Willis is applicable and determinative here. A trial court generally has no authority over a defendant after sentencing. Harper v. State, 8 N.E.3d 694, 696 (Ind.2014). Through Indiana Code section 35-38-1-17, the legislature has…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. State v. PelleyIndiana Supreme Court · 2005
  2. Brian M. Marley v. State of IndianaIndiana Court of Appeals · 2014
  3. Beanblossom v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 1994
  4. Hurst v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 2008
  5. State of Indiana v. Tammy Sue HarperIndiana Supreme Court · 2014

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API