From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sanders v. State

Supreme Court of Indiana
Apr 3, 2002
765 N.E.2d 591 (Ind. 2002)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

holding that in "post-conviction proceedings, complaints that something went awry at trial are generally cognizable only when they show deprivation of the right to effective counsel or issues demonstrably unavailable at the time of trial or direct appeal" and that it is wrong to review the petitioner's fundamental error claim in a post-conviction proceeding

Summary of this case from State v. Stidham
See 10 Summaries

Opinion

Supreme Court No. 49S02-0204-PC-223. Court of Appeals No. 49A02-0104-PC-202.

APRIL 3, 2002.

APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT, The Honorable ALEX R. MURPHY, Judge Pro Tempore, Cause No. 49G02-8910-CF-123146.

Susan K. Carpenter, Public Defender of Indiana, Ruth Johnson, Deputy Public Defender, Indianapolis, Indiana, Attorneys for Appellant.

Steve Carter, Attorney General of Indiana, Adam M. Dulik, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana, Attorneys for Appellee.

SHEPARD, Chief Justice.

Appellant Anthony Sanders was convicted of dealing in cocaine during a 1991 trial and found to be an habitual offender. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Sanders v. State, No. 49A02-9112-CR-563, slip op. (Ind.Ct.App. July 30, 1992).

Sanders sought post-conviction relief, asserting that the form of the habitual offender instruction was fundamental error and that trial and appellate counsel had been ineffective in failing to raise the error. The post-conviction court ruled against Sanders on both contentions.

The Court of Appeals reviewed the merits of both claims. It held that there had been no fundamental error and that counsel had not been ineffective. Sanders v. State, No. 49A02-0104-PC-202, slip op. (Ind.Ct.App. Oct. 31, 2002).

It was wrong to review the fundamental error claim in a post-conviction proceeding. As we explained in Canaan v. State, 683 N.E.2d 227, 235 n. 6 (Ind. 1997), the fundamental error exception to the contemporaneous objection rule applies to direct appeals. In post-conviction proceedings, complaints that something went awry at trial are generally cognizable only when they show deprivation of the right to effective counsel or issues demonstrably unavailable at the time of trial or direct appeal.

We summarily affirm the Court of Appeals with respect to ineffective assistance of counsel. Ind. Appellate Rule 58(A)(2).

The post-conviction court is affirmed.

DICKSON, SULLIVAN, and BOEHM, JJ., concur.

RUCKER, J., concurs in result.

Summaries of

Sanders v. State

Supreme Court of Indiana
Apr 3, 2002
765 N.E.2d 591 (Ind. 2002)

holding that in "post-conviction proceedings, complaints that something went awry at trial are generally cognizable only when they show deprivation of the right to effective counsel or issues demonstrably unavailable at the time of trial or direct appeal" and that it is wrong to review the petitioner's fundamental error claim in a post-conviction proceeding

Summary of this case from State v. Stidham

holding that in “post-conviction proceedings, complaints that something went awry at trial are generally cognizable only when they show deprivation of the right to effective counsel or issues demonstrably unavailable at the time of trial or direct appeal” and that it is wrong to review the petitioner's fundamental error claim in a post-conviction proceeding

Summary of this case from Perryman v. State

holding that in “post-conviction proceedings, complaints that something went awry at trial are generally cognizable only when they show deprivation of the right to effective counsel or issues demonstrably unavailable at the time of trial or direct appeal” and that it is wrong to review the petitioner's fundamental error claim in a post-conviction proceeding

Summary of this case from Ferrin v. State

holding that in “post-conviction proceedings, complaints that something went awry at trial are generally cognizable only when they show deprivation of the right to effective counsel or issues demonstrably unavailable at the time of trial or direct appeal” and that it is wrong to review the petitioner's fundamental error claim in a post-conviction proceeding

Summary of this case from Vazquez v. State

holding that in “post-conviction proceedings, complaints that something went awry at trial are generally cognizable only when they show deprivation of the right to effective counsel or issues demonstrably unavailable at the time of trial or direct appeal” and that it is wrong to review the petitioner's fundamental error claim in a post-conviction proceeding

Summary of this case from Johnson v. State

holding that, generally, post-conviction complaints that something went awry at trial are cognizable only when they show deprivation of the right to effective counsel or issues demonstrably unavailable at the time of trial or direct appeal

Summary of this case from Mitchem v. State

In Sanders, the defendant was convicted of the murder and attempted murder of his son and his girlfriend, who was also his son's mother.

Summary of this case from Eichelberger v. State

In Sanders v. State, 765 N.E.2d 591 (Ind. 2002), the trial court denied post-conviction relief finding neither fundamental error nor ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.

Summary of this case from Dawson v. State

In Sanders, 765 N.E.2d at 592, our Supreme Court held that it was "wrong" for this court to have reviewed a claim of fundamental error in a post-conviction proceeding.

Summary of this case from Jackson v. State

In Sanders, our supreme court concluded that, "It was wrong to review the fundamental error claim in a post-conviction proceeding."

Summary of this case from Woodson v. State
Case details for

Sanders v. State

Case Details

Full title:ANTHONY SANDERS, Appellant (Petitioner Below), v. STATE OF INDIANA…

Court:Supreme Court of Indiana

Date published: Apr 3, 2002

Citations

765 N.E.2d 591 (Ind. 2002)

Citing Cases

Woodson v. State

See IC 35-41-2-4; IC 35-41-5-1; IC 35-42-1-1. The State has petitioned this court for rehearing. Citing…

Primmer v. State

Primmer's claims regarding the Fifth Amendment are little more than a summary of his complaint regarding the…

122 Citing Cases