freestanding claim in Indiana

2009See Lambert, 743 N.E.2d at 746 . [38] Pruitt's final claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel was initially framed as a freestanding claim of trial court error in his post-conviction petition. ( See App. to Br. of Pet.-Appellant 648.) The PC court found at the outset that this claim was "barred by procedural default because [it was] fully available for direct appeal but [was] not raised." Id. at 649.

2009See Lambert, 743 N.E.2d at 746 . 38 Pruitt's final claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel was initially framed as a freestanding claim of trial court error in his post-conviction petition.

2018See Martin v. State, 760 N.E.2d 597, 599 (Ind. 2002) (“Freestanding claims that the original trial court committed error are available only on direct appeal.”); Lambert v. State, 743 N.E.2d 719, 726 (Ind. 2001) (holding that post-conviction procedures do not provide a petitioner with a “super-appeal” or opportunity to consider freestanding claims that the original trial court committed error and that such claims are available only on direct appeal), reh’g denied, cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1136 , 122 S. Ct. 1082 (2002). 3 At the time of trial, Ind. Evidence Rule 403 provided: “Although relevant, e

2015See Martin v. State, 760 N.E.2d 597, 599 (Ind. 2002) (“Freestanding claims that the original trial court committed error are available only on direct appeal.”); Lambert v. State, 743 N.E.2d 719, 726 (Ind. 2001) (holding that post-conviction procedures do not provide a petitioner with a “super-appeal” or opportunity to consider freestanding claims that the original Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A01-1405-PC-222 | February 25, 2015 Page 31 of 32 trial court committed error and that such claims are available only on direct appeal), reh’g denied, cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1136 ,

2017“Post-conviction proceedings do not afford criminal defendants the opportunity for a ‘super-appeal.’ Rather, post-conviction proceedings provide defendants the opportunity to raise issues that were not known at the time of the original trial or that were not available on direct appeal.” State v. Holmes, 728 N.E.2d 164, 167 (Ind. 2000).

2017“Post-conviction proceedings do not afford criminal defendants the opportunity for a ‘super-appeal.’ Rather, post-conviction proceedings provide defendants the opportunity to raise issues that were not known at the time of the original trial or that were not available on direct appeal.” State v. Holmes, 728 N.E.2d 164, 167 (Ind. 2000).

2017Id. at 988 .

2016Hinesley v. State, 999 N.E.2d 975, 988 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied. [8] Affirmed.

2018See Rouster, 705 N.E.2d at 1003 (noting that an issue known and available but not raised on direct appeal is waived by petitioner).

2001The postconviction court found, "Petitioner has produced no credible evidence that the conclusions reached by trial counsel's experts were wrong." We agree with the postconviction court that the issue of Timberlake's competency at trial was known and available on direct appeal and is therefore not available as a freestanding claim in postconviction relief, Rouster v. State, 705 N.E.2d 999, 1003 (Ind.1999).

2013See, e.g., Canaan v. State, 683 N.E.2d 227, 235 (Ind.1997) ("An available grounds for relief not raised at trial or on direct appeal is not available as a grounds for collateral attack.”).

2013See, e.g., Canaan v. State, 683 N.E.2d 227, 235 (Ind. 1997) (“An available grounds for relief not raised at trial or on direct appeal is not available as a grounds for collateral attack.”).

2007See e.g., Conner v. State, 829 N.E.2d 21, 25 (Ind.2005); Stevens, 770 N.E.2d at 756-57 ; Sanders v. State, 765 N.E.2d 591, 592 (Ind.2002). *1030 Stephenson argues that the State conceded that the use of the belt was properly before the post-conviction court as a freestanding issue.

2007See e.g., Conner v. State, 829 N.E.2d 21, 25 (Ind.2005); Stevens, 770 N.E.2d at 756-57 ; Sanders v. State, 765 N.E.2d 591, 592 (Ind.2002).

2007See e.g., Conner v. State, 829 N.E.2d 21, 25 (Ind.2005); Stevens, 770 N.E.2d at 756-57 ; Sanders v. State, 765 N.E.2d 591, 592 (Ind.2002). *1030 Stephenson argues that the State conceded that the use of the belt was properly before the post-conviction court as a freestanding issue.

2007See e.g., Conner v. State, 829 N.E.2d 21, 25 (Ind.2005); Stevens, 770 N.E.2d at 756-57 ; Sanders v. State, 765 N.E.2d 591, 592 (Ind.2002).

2003See Ben-Yisrayl 738 N.E.2d at 258 .

2001See Ben-Yisrayl v. State, 738 N.E.2d 253, 258 (Ind.2000), State v. Holmes, 728 N.E.2d 164, 168 (Ind. 2000), cert. denied, — U.S. ——, 121 S.Ct. 2220 , 150 L.Ed.2d 212 (2001).

2020See Timberlake, 753 N.E.2d at 598 (providing that an issue that was known and available on direct appeal and is not available as a freestanding claim in postconviction relief); Weatherford, 619 N.E.2d at 917 (“Issues which were or could have been raised on direct appeal are not available for review in post-conviction.”).

2020See Timberlake v. State, 753 N.E.2d 591, 598 (Ind. 2001) (providing that an issue that was known and available on direct appeal and is not available as a freestanding claim in postconviction relief); Weatherford v. State, 619 N.E.2d 915, 917 (Ind. 1993) (“Issues which were or could have been raised on direct appeal are not available for review in post-conviction.”).

2020See Timberlake, 753 N.E.2d at 598 (providing that an issue that was known and available on direct appeal and is not available as a freestanding claim in postconviction relief); Weatherford, 619 N.E.2d at 917 (“Issues which were or could have been raised on direct appeal are not available for review in post-conviction.”).

2020See Timberlake v. State, 753 N.E.2d 591, 598 (Ind. 2001) (providing that an issue that was known and available on direct appeal and is not available as a freestanding claim in postconviction relief); Weatherford v. State, 619 N.E.2d 915, 917 (Ind. 1993) (“Issues which were or could have been raised on direct appeal are not available for review in post-conviction.”).

2015See, e.g., Myers v. State, 33 N.E.3d 1077, 1115-16 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (claim of prosecutorial misconduct failed where raised for the first time in post-conviction proceedings instead of direct appeal), trans. denied.

2015See Woods v. State, 701 N.E.2d 1208, 1220 (Ind. 1998) (holding that, if ineffective assistance of trial counsel is raised on direct appeal, the issue will be foreclosed from collateral review.), cert. denied. 7 of Johnson’s issues.

2014See Bailey v. State, 472 N.E.2d 1260, 1263 (Ind. 1985).

2013See Baer v. State, 942 N.E.2d 80, 90 (Ind. 2011) (providing that the petitioner was barred from bringing a freestanding claim on PCR because the claim raised by petitioner was available as an issue for direct appeal).1 The judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.

2013Our supreme court has explained, “[t]he habitual substance offender statute punishes repeat offenders whether the underlying convictions were misdemeanors or felonies, while the general habitual offender statute is reserved for criminals who have repeatedly been convicted of felonies.” Hendrix v. State, 759 N.E.2d 1045, 1048 (Ind. 2001).

2012See Collins v. State, 817 N.E.2d 230, 232 (Ind. 2004) (noting that issues that are known and available but not raised on direct appeal may not be raised in post- conviction proceedings).

2004See Johnson v. State, 734 N.E.2d 242, 247 (Ind.2000) (reiterating that "'when a defendant pleads guilty, he may challenge only sentencing errors on direct appeal, not alleged errors involving his guilty plea or conviction.'") (citation omitted).

2001See Austin Lakes, 648 N.E.2d at 650 (finding no legal or factual questions reserved for agency decision making in a breach of contract claim).

2001See Ben-Yisrayl v. State, 738 N.E.2d 253, 258 (Ind.2000), State v. Holmes, 728 N.E.2d 164, 168 (Ind. 2000), cert. denied, — U.S. ——, 121 S.Ct. 2220 , 150 L.Ed.2d 212 (2001).

2001See Ben-Yisrayl v. State, 738 N.E.2d 253, 258 (Ind.2000), State v. Holmes, 728 N.E.2d 164, 168 (Ind. 2000), cert. denied, — U.S. ——, 121 S.Ct. 2220 , 150 L.Ed.2d 212 (2001).