id	author	title	date	pages	extension	mime	words	sentence	flesch	summary	cache	txt
inlawrev-18376	Babb, Bryan H; Dick, Bradley M	Developments in Indiana Appellate Procedure: Rule Amendments, Remarkable Case Law, and Court Guidance for Appellate Practitioners	2015	16	.pdf	application/pdf	6577	446	69	The motions panel denied the State’s motion, but it raised the issue again in its appellee’s brief.74 The court of appeals, relying on Haste, held that until a trial court orders restitution the sentence is not a final judgment under Appellate Rule 2(H)(1), so Appellate Rule 9(A)(1)75 does not allow the defendant to appeal.76 After determining that the defendant’s appeal should be dismissed, the court admonished trial courts not to delay making restitution orders, in part because the “trial court is still subject to the ninety (90) day time limitation in Indiana Trial Rule 53.2 (‘the lazy judge rule’).”77 The supreme court granted transfer and decided that the court of appeals should not have dismissed because of the “particular circumstances” of Alexander’s case.78 But when J.M. was published in West’s Northeastern Reporter, the footnote had changed to provide that courts would only keep parties confidential upon an “affirmative request.	cache/inlawrev-18376.pdf	txt/inlawrev-18376.txt