Jesus S. Gil v. State of Indiana

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that the trial court must provide the defendant with a written statement containing the terms and conditions of probation at the sentencing hearing
• concluding that the trial court’s error in failing to enter written probation terms was not harmless and remanding the matter to the trial court with the instruction that the trial court enter written probation terms
• holding that a $20,000 restitution order could not be based on an incident for which defendant was not convicted; defendant pleaded guilty to one count in exchange for the State dismissing the 7 other count upon which the restitution order was based
• noting the “purpose behind [Indiana Code § 35-35-3- 3] is to insure that a defendant does not base his guilty plea upon certain promises made by the prosecutor where the judge has in fact not accepted the [S]tate’s recommendation”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).