improper amendment of the initial charges and that, because the initial charges had been dismissed, the subsequent charges should have been dismissed as well. In support of his position, Casady cites Fajardo v. State, 859 N.E.2d 1201 (Ind. 2007), in which our supreme court held that substantive amendments to a felony charging information must be made no later than thirty days before the omnibus date. Id. at 1207 (citing Ind.Code § 35-34-1-5(b)). Here, however, the State did not amend the charging information; it instead filed additional charges based upon additional acts of voyeurism and eventually dismissed the original charges. We therefore disagree with Casady that the holding in Fajardo is applicable to the present case. See Malone v. State, 702 N.E.2d 1102, 1104 (Ind.Ct.App.1998) (<HOLDING>). Still, although the State is generally free
holding that the speedy trial clock for state charges did not begin to run when the defendant was taken into custody by federal authorities on federal charges but rather when he was indicted for the state charges holding that a defendant is not entitled to automatic discharge upon the expiration of speedy trial even though he was not provided actual notice that the charges were refiled holding that trial court improperly dismissed charges pretrial because the state did not disclose the identity of a confidential informant holding that  1983 claims accrued when all charges were dismissed rather than a previous date on which the conviction was vacated on the theory that the charges remained pending until the dismissal holding that indiana code section 353415b was not implicated where state did not amend original charging information but instead dismissed original charges and refiled new charges