Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1999–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Craig v. Stategreen2 sentences2019See Craig v. State, 804 N.E.2d 170, 173 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (holding that if a defendant presents claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal, then res judicata prevents him from relitigating this claim in post-conviction proceedings even if it is based on different allegations of ineffectiveness); Hardy v. State, 786 N.E.2d 783, 787 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (“[A] defendant must present all claims of ineffective assistance of counsel . . . at the same time. 2016The directive from the Woods decision was that a defendant “must decide the forum for adjudication of the issue – direct appeal or collateral review[,]” and “[t]he specific contentions supporting the claim . . . may not be divided between the two proceedings.” 5 Woods, 701 N.E.2d at 1220; see also Craig, 804 N.E.2d at 173 (“[I]f a defendant presents a claim of ineffectiveness upon direct appeal, he is foreclosed from subsequently relitigating that claim, even if based upon different grounds.”) Accordingly, here, the post-conviction court did not err when it concluded that Newman was foreclosed | 2 | 2 |
Miller v. Stategreen2 sentences2016Sufficiency of the Evidence “When, as here, reversal is required because of trial error, and a defendant presents a claim of insufficient evidence, an acquittal instead of a new trial is required if the proof of guilt is insufficient in light of the evidence presented at trial.” Miller v. State, 916 N.E.2d 193, 198 (Ind.Ct.App.2009) (citation omitted), trans. denied. 2011Miller v. State, 916 N.E.2d 193, 198 (Ind.Ct.App.2009), trans. denied (2010). | 2 | 2 |
Hardy v. Stategreen1 sentence2019See Craig v. State, 804 N.E.2d 170, 173 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (holding that if a defendant presents claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal, then res judicata prevents him from relitigating this claim in post-conviction proceedings even if it is based on different allegations of ineffectiveness); Hardy v. State, 786 N.E.2d 783, 787 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (“[A] defendant must present all claims of ineffective assistance of counsel . . . at the same time. | 1 | 1 |
Drane v. Stategreen1 sentence2016When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, “appellate courts must consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict.” Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind.2007) (quotations omitted) (citation omitted) (emphasis omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Woods v. Stategreen1 sentence2016Newman v. State, No. 12A05-0608-CR-421 at *9 (Ind. Ct. App. June 12, 2007), trans. denied. 5 The Woods Court observed that, “[a]s a practical matter, this rule will likely deter all but the most confident appellants from asserting any claim of ineffectiveness on direct appeal.” Woods v. State, 701 N.E.2d 1208, 1220 (Ind. 1998). | 1 | 1 |
Hood v. Stategreen2 sentences2009Hood v. State, 877 N.E.2d 492, 496 (Ind.Ct.App.2007). 2009Hood v. State, 877 N.E.2d 492, 496 (Ind.Ct.App.2007). | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Stategreen1 sentence2007Rohr v. State, 866 N.E.2d 242, 247-48 (Ind.2007); Bowman v. State, 577 N.E.2d 569, 571 (Ind.1991); see also Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33, 40-41 , 109 S.Ct. 285, 290-91 , 102 L.Ed.2d 265, 273-74 (1988); Miller v. State, 575 N.E.2d 272, 276-77 (Ind.1991); Williams v. State, 544 N.E.2d 161, 163 (Ind.1989). | 1 | 1 |
Miller v. Stategreen1 sentence2007Rohr v. State, 866 N.E.2d 242, 247-48 (Ind.2007); Bowman v. State, 577 N.E.2d 569, 571 (Ind.1991); see also Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33, 40-41 , 109 S.Ct. 285, 290-91 , 102 L.Ed.2d 265, 273-74 (1988); Miller v. State, 575 N.E.2d 272, 276-77 (Ind.1991); Williams v. State, 544 N.E.2d 161, 163 (Ind.1989). | 1 | 1 |
Bowman v. Stategreen1 sentence2007Rohr v. State, 866 N.E.2d 242, 247-48 (Ind.2007); Bowman v. State, 577 N.E.2d 569, 571 (Ind.1991); see also Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33, 40-41 , 109 S.Ct. 285, 290-91 , 102 L.Ed.2d 265, 273-74 (1988); Miller v. State, 575 N.E.2d 272, 276-77 (Ind.1991); Williams v. State, 544 N.E.2d 161, 163 (Ind.1989). | 1 | 1 |
Rohr v. Stategreen1 sentence2007Rohr v. State, 866 N.E.2d 242, 247-48 (Ind.2007); Bowman v. State, 577 N.E.2d 569, 571 (Ind.1991); see also Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33, 40-41 , 109 S.Ct. 285, 290-91 , 102 L.Ed.2d 265, 273-74 (1988); Miller v. State, 575 N.E.2d 272, 276-77 (Ind.1991); Williams v. State, 544 N.E.2d 161, 163 (Ind.1989). | 1 | 1 |
Lockhart v. Nelsongreen2 sentences2007Rohr v. State, 866 N.E.2d 242, 247-48 (Ind.2007); Bowman v. State, 577 N.E.2d 569, 571 (Ind.1991); see also Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33, 40-41 , 109 S.Ct. 285, 290-91 , 102 L.Ed.2d 265, 273-74 (1988); Miller v. State, 575 N.E.2d 272, 276-77 (Ind.1991); Williams v. State, 544 N.E.2d 161, 163 (Ind.1989). 2007Rohr v. State, 866 N.E.2d 242, 247-48 (Ind.2007); Bowman v. State, 577 N.E.2d 569, 571 (Ind.1991); see also Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33, 40-41 , 109 S.Ct. 285, 290-91 , 102 L.Ed.2d 265, 273-74 (1988); Miller v. State, 575 N.E.2d 272, 276-77 (Ind.1991); Williams v. State, 544 N.E.2d 161, 163 (Ind.1989). | 1 | 1 |
Jennings v. Stategreen2 sentences1999See Jennings, 514 N.E.2d at 837 (reversible error to instruct that State's proof need not establish particular date of charged offenses when alibi defense was asserted; instructions circumvented and nullified defendant's opportunity to assert his alibi defense). 1999See Jennings, 514 N.E.2d at 837 (reversible error to instruct that State’s proof need not establish particular date of charged offenses when alibi defense was asserted; instructions circumvented and nullified defendant’s opportunity to assert his alibi defense). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Rogers v. State
green
1 sentence2015Id. at 965 . [18] Peak’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is premised on his conclusion that the officers seized him in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 1 The Fourth Amendment provides: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. [19] A traffic stop is a “seizure” | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Littler v. State
green
1 sentence2007Id. at 279-280 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.