11 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Indiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Allen v. Stategreen1 sentence2019Allen, 791 N.E.2d at 753 (internal citation omitted). [9] Post-Conviction Rule 1(9)(b) provides another way for the post-conviction court to rule on a petition without an evidentiary hearing: In the event petitioner elects to proceed pro se, the court at its discretion may order the cause submitted upon affidavit. | 1 | 1 |
Norris v. Stategreen1 sentence2017Norris v. State, 896 N.E.2d 1149, 1151 (Ind. 2008). | 1 | 1 |
Henley v. Stategreen1 sentence2017When the post- conviction court makes findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Indiana Post–Conviction Rule 1(6), we do not defer to the court’s legal conclusions, but the “findings and judgment will be reversed only upon a showing of clear error—that which leaves us with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” Henley v. State, 881 N.E.2d 639, 644 (Ind. 2008).2 2 Doll notes that in his motion to correct error he requested that the post-conviction court rule in full on “all issues that were presented in” his original petition for post-conviction relief an | 1 | 1 |
Bieghler v. Stategreen2 sentences2003Bieghler v. State, 690 N.E.2d 188, 192-93 (Ind.1997). 2003Bieghler v. State, 690 N.E.2d 188, 192-93 (Ind.1997). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Eubanksgreen1 sentence2002See also State v. Eubanks, 729 N.E.2d 201, 205 (Ind.Ct.App.2000), trans. denied (State must “argue” waiver as a defense to the post-conviction court or the defense is waived); Nelson v. Gurley, 673 N.E.2d 497 , 500 n. 3 (Ind.Ct.App.1996) (Waiver “must be specifically pleaded in the answer or specifically raised at trial or it is waived.”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Darryl Calvin v. State of Indiana
green
1 sentence2020At the conclusion of the hearing, the court denied the petition, stating in relevant part: “The Court finds that the cases cited by the Petitioner, Calvin v. State, 87 N.E.3d 474 , and Lacey v. State, 124 N.E.3d 1253 , are not controlling [because] those … cases interpreted statutes from 2014 going forward, which required proof of prior felony offenses at a specific level, unlike the 2010 version of the habitual offender statute.” Tr. at 41. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
John Jay Lacey v. State of Indiana
green
1 sentence2020At the conclusion of the hearing, the court denied the petition, stating in relevant part: “The Court finds that the cases cited by the Petitioner, Calvin v. State, 87 N.E.3d 474 , and Lacey v. State, 124 N.E.3d 1253 , are not controlling [because] those … cases interpreted statutes from 2014 going forward, which required proof of prior felony offenses at a specific level, unlike the 2010 version of the habitual offender statute.” Tr. at 41. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
United States v. Cronic
green
1 sentence2016Specifically, Hinkle alleged that his appellate counsel had rendered ineffective assistance by: (1) failing to file a reply brief to address harmless error; and (2) failing to file a petition for transfer or notify him of the deadline to file a petition to transfer, which, he argued, resulted in a complete denial of counsel that should be considered Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 12A02-1508-PC-1040 | May 20, 2016 Page 7 of 20 under the standard set out in U.S. v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984), rather than under the Strickland standard.2 [9] On February 10, 2015, the post-convi | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Hill v. State
green
1 sentence2012Id. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Eichelberger v. State
green
1 sentence2012At the time of the trial, the case of Eichelbarger v. State, 852 N.E.2d 631 (Ind.App. 2006) had not yet been decided. 6. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2003In evaluating a post-conviction claim of appellate counsel ineffectiveness, a post-conviction court applies the standard of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) to determine if appellate counsel's conduct fell below professional norms and resulted in prejudice such that our confidence in the outcome is undermined. 2003In evaluating a post-conviction claim of appellate counsel ineffectiveness, a post-conviction court applies the standard of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) to determine if appellate counsel's conduct fell below professional norms and resulted in prejudice such that our confidence in the outcome is undermined. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Nelson v. Gurley
green
1 sentence2002See also State v. Eubanks, 729 N.E.2d 201, 205 (Ind.Ct.App.2000), trans. denied (State must “argue” waiver as a defense to the post-conviction court or the defense is waived); Nelson v. Gurley, 673 N.E.2d 497 , 500 n. 3 (Ind.Ct.App.1996) (Waiver “must be specifically pleaded in the answer or specifically raised at trial or it is waived.”). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Shoulders v. State
green
1 sentence2002Id. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Radio Picture Show Partnership v. Exclusive International Pictures, Inc.
green
1 sentence1986Radio Picture Show v. Exclusive International Pictures (1985), Ind.App., 482 N.E.2d 1159 , reh. den'd Oct. 25, 1985, trans. den'd Feb. 11, 1986. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.