From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Dixon

Court of Appeals of Indiana
Apr 14, 2010
924 N.E.2d 1270 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010)

Summary

holding the Successive Prosecution Statute did not bar the State from pursuing a criminal recklessness charge even though the defendant already pled guilty to operating while intoxicated because the two crimes did not share a distinctive nature, modus operandi, or common motive

Summary of this case from Brittingham v. State

Opinion

No. 48A05-1001-CR-30.

April 14, 2010.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Madison County, Fredrick R. Spencer, J.

Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Cynthia L. Ploughe, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellant.

David W. Stone IV, Anderson, IN, Attorney for Appellee.


OPINION


Summaries of

State v. Dixon

Court of Appeals of Indiana
Apr 14, 2010
924 N.E.2d 1270 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010)

holding the Successive Prosecution Statute did not bar the State from pursuing a criminal recklessness charge even though the defendant already pled guilty to operating while intoxicated because the two crimes did not share a distinctive nature, modus operandi, or common motive

Summary of this case from Brittingham v. State
Case details for

State v. Dixon

Case Details

Full title:STATE of Indiana, Appellant-Plaintiff, v. Ollie H. DIXON, ST.…

Court:Court of Appeals of Indiana

Date published: Apr 14, 2010

Citations

924 N.E.2d 1270 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010)

Citing Cases

Slone v. State

We have previously stated that while the phrase “episode of criminal conduct” may involve somewhat similar…

Schmidt v. State

In light of this statute, Schmidt's arguments that the determinative factors are merely whether the offenses…