res judicata doctrine in Indiana

2018See Ben-Yisrayl v. State, 738 N.E.2d 253, 258 (Ind. 2000) (noting that, as a general rule, when a court decides an issue on direct appeal, the doctrine of res judicata applies, thereby precluding its review in post-conviction proceedings), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1164 (2002). [18] Considering our decision on direct appeal, the totality of the final jury instructions, and trial counsel’s closing argument, we cannot say that Barbee showed a reasonable probability that, but for trial counsel’s errors, the result of his trial would have been different.

2015See Ben-Yisrayl v. State, 738 N.E.2d 253, 258 (Ind. 2000) (noting that when an issue is decided on direct appeal, the doctrine of res judicata applies, thereby precluding its review in post-conviction proceedings).

2019The doctrine of res judicata “prevents the repetitious litigation of that which is essentially the same dispute.” State v. Holmes, 728 N.E.2d 164, 168 (Ind. 2000).

2018Discussion and Decision [13] The doctrine of res judicata, whether in the form of claim preclusion or issue preclusion, “prevents the repetitious litigation of that which is essentially the same dispute.” State v. Holmes, 728 N.E.2d 164, 168 (Ind. 2000).

2003Still, Hooker directs us to State v. Huffman, 643 N.E.2d 899, 901 (Ind.1994), in which our supreme court suggested that, despite the doctrine of res judicata, courts may always revisit prior decisions where the initial decision was clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice.

1999Although the post conviction court, Williams, and the State refer to this policy as the doctrine of res judicata, we believe the doctrine is more accurately denominated the ‘law of the case.’ In State v. Huffman, 643 N.E.2d 899 (Ind.1994), our supreme court used the terms ‘res judicata’ and ‘law of the case’ interchangeably, id. at 901 ; however, in State v. Lewis, our supreme court also noted that the two doctrines are distinct.

2018"A court has the power to revisit prior decisions of its own or of a coordinate court in any circumstance, although as a rule courts should be loathe to do so in the absence of extraordinary circumstances such as where the initial decision was 'clearly erroneous and would work manifest injustice.' " State v. Lewis (1989), Ind., 543 N.E.2d 1116 [ , 1118] (quoting Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp. , 486 U.S. 800 , 817, 108 S.Ct. 2166 , 2178, 100 L.Ed.2d 811 , 831 (1988) ).

2000Although the post-conviction court, McCary, and the State refers to this policy as the doctrine of res judicata, we believe that the doctrine is more accurately denominated the law of the case. “[T]he law of the case doctrine ‘merely expresses the practice of courts generally to refuse to reopen what has been decided, not a limit on their power.’ ” State v. Lewis, 543 N.E.2d 1116, 1118 (Ind.1989) (quoting Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 816-18 , 108 S.Ct. 2166, 2178 , 100 L.Ed.2d 811, 831 (1988)).

2020The doctrine of res judicata does not bar an action if “the initial decision was clearly erroneous and would work manifest injustice,” Wallace v. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PC-357 | April 24, 2020 Page 7 of 12 State, 820 N.E.2d 1261, 1263 (Ind. 2005), or if there is newly-discovered evidence.

2014The doctrine of res judicata does not bar an action if “the initial decision was clearly erroneous and would work manifest injustice,” Wallace v. State, 820 N.E.2d 1261, 1263 (Ind. 2005), or if there is newly- discovered evidence.

2016Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1512-JP-2308 | August 23, 2016 Page 11 of 13 following four requirements must be satisfied for a claim to be precluded under the doctrine of res judicata: 1) the former judgment must have been rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction; 2) the former judgment must have been rendered on the merits; 3) the matter now in issue was, or could have been, determined in the prior action; and 4) the controversy adjudicated in the former action must have been between the parties to the present suit or their privies. 731 N.E.2d 22, 26 (Ind. Ct. A

2015Small, 731 N.E.2d at 26 .

2018The State also asserts that the doctrine of res judicata does not apply to a proceeding like this one, which is not treated as an adversarial criminal proceeding. [14] The Indiana Supreme Court has held that "[r]es judicata is a legal doctrine intended 'to prevent repetitious litigation of disputes that are essentially the same, by holding a prior final judgment binding against both the original parties and their privies.' " Ind. State Ethics Comm'n v. Sanchez , 18 N.E.3d 988 , 993 (Ind. 2014) (quoting Becker v. State , 992 N.E.2d 697 , 700 (Ind. 2013) ).

2018The State also asserts that the doctrine of res judicata does not apply to a proceeding like this one, which is not treated as an adversarial criminal proceeding. [14] The Indiana Supreme Court has held that “[r]es judicata is a legal doctrine intended ‘to prevent repetitious litigation of disputes that are essentially the same, by holding a prior final judgment binding against both the original parties and their privies.’” Ind. State Ethics Comm’n v. Sanchez, 18 N.E.3d 988, 993 (Ind. 2014) (quoting Becker v. State, 992 N.E.2d 697, 700 (Ind. 2013)).

2019The power to determine that an issue is forfeited is an application of the basic principle that post-conviction proceedings do not afford the Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PC-2805 | November 6, 2019 Page 6 of 10 claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel in successive petition for post- conviction relief where a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel was presented and litigated in the initial post-conviction proceedings); Matheney, 834 N.E.2d at 662 (holding that claims presented in previous post-conviction petitions but decided against the petitioner a

2017“Claims that have already been decided adversely are barred from re-litigation in successive post-conviction proceedings by the doctrine of res judicata.” Id.

1993In his opinion for the court, Chief Judge Buchanan quoted the following passage from 2 Am.Jur.2d, Ad-manistrative Law § 497 (1962); "In general, the answer given by the courts to the question whether an administrative determination is capable of be *870 ing res judicata depends on the nature of the administrative action involved, and the doctrine of res judicata has been applied to administrative action that has been characterized by the courts as 'adjudicatory,' "judicial or 'quasijudi-cial, while to administrative determinations of 'administrative,' 'executive,' 'legislative,' or 'ministeria

1993In his opinion for the court, Chief Judge Buchanan quoted the following passage from 2 Am.Jur.2d, Ad-manistrative Law § 497 (1962); "In general, the answer given by the courts to the question whether an administrative determination is capable of be *870 ing res judicata depends on the nature of the administrative action involved, and the doctrine of res judicata has been applied to administrative action that has been characterized by the courts as 'adjudicatory,' "judicial or 'quasijudi-cial, while to administrative determinations of 'administrative,' 'executive,' 'legislative,' or 'ministeria

2020See Reed, 856 N.E.2d at 1195 (holding that the doctrine of res judicata did not bar the defendant’s claim on post-conviction relief where, although a sentencing issue was raised on direct appeal, no argument was made that the defendant’s sentence was improper because it was governed by the provisions of a specific statute that limits a court’s authority to impose consecutive sentences in certain circumstances). [29] Ind. Code § 35-34-1-5 (d) provides that when the State amends a charging information, the trial court “shall upon motion by the defendant order any continuance of the proceeding wh

2020“As a general rule, when a reviewing court decides an issue on direct appeal, the doctrine of res judicata applies, thereby precluding its review in post-conviction proceedings.” Reed v. State, 856 N.E.2d 1189, 1194 (Ind. 2006).

2025Moreover, in discussing the doctrine of res judicata, our Supreme Court has held: [R]es judicata operates “to prevent repetitious litigation of disputes that are essentially the same, by holding a prior final judgment binding against both the original parties and their privies.” Becker v. State, 992 N.E.2d 697, 700 (Ind. 2013).

2018The State also asserts that the doctrine of res judicata does not apply to a proceeding like this one, which is not treated as an adversarial criminal proceeding. [14] The Indiana Supreme Court has held that "[r]es judicata is a legal doctrine intended 'to prevent repetitious litigation of disputes that are essentially the same, by holding a prior final judgment binding against both the original parties and their privies.' " Ind. State Ethics Comm'n v. Sanchez , 18 N.E.3d 988 , 993 (Ind. 2014) (quoting Becker v. State , 992 N.E.2d 697 , 700 (Ind. 2013) ).

2018See Appellant’s Reply Brief at 6; see also, e.g., Conner v. State, 829 N.E.2d 21, 25 (Ind. 2005) (noting that to the extent a claim is the same as has been raised before and decided adversely, it is barred by the doctrine of res judicata).

2012See Conner v. State, 829 N.E.2d 21, 25 (Ind. 2005) (holding that to the extent the petitioner’s present claim is the same as raised before, the claim was decided adverse to the petitioner and is barred by the doctrine of res judicata).

2017Jervis v. State, 28 N.E.3d 361, 368 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans, denied.

2015Jervis v. State, 28 N.E.3d 361, 368 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied.

2016See Conner v. State, 711 N.E.2d 1238, 1244 (Ind. 1999) (“when this Court decides an issue on direct appeal, the doctrine of res judicata applies, thereby precluding its review in post- conviction proceedings”), reh’g denied, cert. denied.

2015See Conner v. State, 711 N.E.2d 1238, 1244 (Ind. 1999) (“when this Court decides an issue on direct appeal, the doctrine of res judicata applies, thereby precluding its review in post-conviction proceedings”).

2018Lowery v. State, 640 N.E.2d 1031, 1037 (Ind. 1994). [14] An individual wishing to challenge a conviction and sentence collaterally may present this challenge in a post-conviction proceeding.

1999Trueblood responds to the State’s waiver argument by asserting that his claims "fall within the 'additional argument’ exception to the doctrine of res judicata, Lowery v. State, 640 N.E.2d 1031 (Ind.1994), ‘because it is not a duplicate of any issue he raised on direct appeal, Baird v. State, [ 688 N.E.2d 911 (Ind.1997).]’” Neither case cited permits a petitioner to raise issues known and available at the time of the direct appeal in a petition for postconviction relief. 2 .

2000Although the post-conviction court, McCary, and the State refers to this policy as the doctrine of res judicata, we believe that the doctrine is more accurately denominated the law of the case. “[T]he law of the case doctrine ‘merely expresses the practice of courts generally to refuse to reopen what has been decided, not a limit on their power.’ ” State v. Lewis, 543 N.E.2d 1116, 1118 (Ind.1989) (quoting Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 816-18 , 108 S.Ct. 2166, 2178 , 100 L.Ed.2d 811, 831 (1988)).

2000Although the post-conviction court, McCary, and the State refers to this policy as the doctrine of res judicata, we believe that the doctrine is more accurately denominated the law of the case. “[T]he law of the case doctrine ‘merely expresses the practice of courts generally to refuse to reopen what has been decided, not a limit on their power.’ ” State v. Lewis, 543 N.E.2d 1116, 1118 (Ind.1989) (quoting Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 816-18 , 108 S.Ct. 2166, 2178 , 100 L.Ed.2d 811, 831 (1988)).

2020Angelopoulos v. Angelopoulos, 2 N.E.3d 688, 696 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied.

2019Angelopoulos v. Angelopoulos, 2 N.E.3d 688, 696 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied.

2020Daniels, 741 N.E.2d at 1185 . 2.

2014Daniels, 741 N.E.2d at 1185 .

1989Appellee correctly cites Middelkamp v. Hanewich (1977), 173 Ind.App. 571, 585 , 364 N.E.2d 1024, 1033 , for the elements required for the application of the doctrine of res judicata: "'The basic elements of res adjudicata are fourfold: (1) the former judgment must have been rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) the matter now in issue was, or might have been, determined in the former suit; (8) the particular controversy adjudicated in the former action must have been between the parties to the present suit; and (4) judgment in the former suit must have been rendered on the merits.

1989Appellee correctly cites Middelkamp v. Hanewich (1977), 173 Ind.App. 571, 585 , 364 N.E.2d 1024, 1033 , for the elements required for the application of the doctrine of res judicata: "'The basic elements of res adjudicata are fourfold: (1) the former judgment must have been rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) the matter now in issue was, or might have been, determined in the former suit; (8) the particular controversy adjudicated in the former action must have been between the parties to the present suit; and (4) judgment in the former suit must have been rendered on the merits.

2025This doctrine applies “where there has been a final adjudication on the merits of the same issue between the same parties.” Ind. State Ethics Comm’n v. Sanchez, 18 N.E.3d 988, 993 (Ind. 2014) (quoting Gayheart v. Newnam Foundry Co., Inc., (1979) 271 Ind. 422, 426 , 393 N.E.2d 163, 167 ).

2025This doctrine applies “where there has been a final adjudication on the merits of the same issue between the same parties.” Ind. State Ethics Comm’n v. Sanchez, 18 N.E.3d 988, 993 (Ind. 2014) (quoting Gayheart v. Newnam Foundry Co., Inc., (1979) 271 Ind. 422, 426 , 393 N.E.2d 163, 167 ).

2018See Ben-Yisrayl v. State, 738 N.E.2d 253, 258 (Ind. 2000) (noting that, as a general rule, when a court decides an issue on direct appeal, the doctrine of res judicata applies, thereby precluding its review in post-conviction proceedings), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1164 (2002). [18] Considering our decision on direct appeal, the totality of the final jury instructions, and trial counsel’s closing argument, we cannot say that Barbee showed a reasonable probability that, but for trial counsel’s errors, the result of his trial would have been different.

2012“The doctrine of res judicata 4 prevents the repetitious litigation of that which is essentially the same dispute.” Ben- Yisrayl v. State, 738 N.E.2d 253, 258 (Ind. 2000) (emphasis and citations omitted)(cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1164 (2002)).

2016Id.

2015Corp. v. Indiana Election Comm’n, 924 N.E.2d 184, 191 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). [7] In response to A.A.’s res judicata argument, A.S. argues that the previous order denying A.S.’s first petition for protective order was not rendered “on the merits,” as is required by the second element of the res judicata doctrine.

2020Id. at 420 .

2019See Stidham , 110 N.E.3d at 420 ; see Love v. State, 22 N.E.3d 663 , 664 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (declining to "reach the merits of Love's claim as the issue has been resolved against him numerous times").