A post-conviction court must make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law when there is a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and involuntariness of a guilty plea.
Criminal
Lindsey v. State, No. 71A04-1412-PC-576, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., March 14, 2017).
Defendant was entitled to post-conviction relief to reduce his sentence because of the poor advice of his attorney to reject a plea agreement.
Hanks v. State, No. 10A01-1604-PC-690, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., March 15, 2017).
Even though defendant could not prove ineffective assistance of counsel after entering an open plea agreement and receiving a fifty-year sentence, the post-conviction court must hear evidence and determine if the plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.
Miller v. State, No. 28A04-1603-CR-634, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., March 17, 2017).
Defendant is entitled to a new trial when the trial court as fact finder applies the incorrect standard of a “knowing” mens rea rather than “specific intent to kill” in deciding conviction for attempted murder.
Beville v. State, No. 84S01-1606-CR-347, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., March 17, 2017).
The State has the burden of proving the essential elements of an informer’s privilege before the burden shifts to the defendant to prove an exception to that privilege.