R. Pyle

A request for a change of judge pursuant to Indiana Post-Conviction Rule 1(4)(b) requires the judge to examine the affidavit, treat the historical facts recited in the affidavit as true, and determine whether these facts support a rational inference of bias or prejudice. However, adverse rulings and findings by a trial judge from past proceedings with respect to a particular party are generally not sufficient reasons to believe the judge has a personal bias or prejudice.

A habitual offender adjudication must be based on proof that a defendant has accumulated two prior unrelated felony convictions, meaning that the commission, conviction, and sentencing on the first felony preceded the commission, conviction, and sentence on the second felony. A post-conviction petitioner who challenges his habitual offender determination must demonstrate that he was not a habitual offender under the habitual offender statute and that his various convictions did not in fact occur in the required order.

Diagnostic testimony from a medical professional based on information acquired from other professionals is inadmissible hearsay; however, the same testimony may be admissible under Evidence Rule 703, which provides: “An expert may base an opinion on facts or data in the case that the expert has been made aware of or personally observed. Experts may testify to opinions based on inadmissible evidence, provided that it is of the type reasonably relied upon by experts in the field.”

For an alleged violation of Brady v. Maryland to be meritorious, the evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused, either because the evidence is exculpatory or because it is impeaching; the evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently; and prejudice must have ensued.