COA affirms dismissal of PCR petition

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A man challenging his guilty plea on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel did not present any evidence to support his allegations, so the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition of his petition for post-conviction relief.

Jerry McClure stabbed and robbed a woman in Lafayette in 2006 and later pleaded guilty to Class A felony robbery resulting in serious bodily injury and to being a habitual offender. McClure then sought post-conviction relief, claiming the trial court committed fundamental error when it accepted his guilty plea on the habitual offender enhancement without a factual basis for that plea. He also alleged ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney let him plead guilty to that count.

McClure filed his PCR petition pro se and never submitted an affidavit in support of relief. The PCR court granted the state’s motion for summary disposition of the petition, leading McClure to appeal. The Court of Appeals also dismissed due to an absence of a record. But the Indiana Supreme Court ordered McClure’s appendix to be filed and remanded to the COA for review of the merits of his appeal.

But McClure still has not submitted an affidavit, or any other evidence, to the PCR court pursuant to its order to proceed upon affidavits. Based on this lack of evidence to support his allegations, the PCR court did not err when it granted the state’s motion for summary disposition, the Court of Appeals held Friday in Jerry L. McClure v. State of Indiana, 79A02-1501-PC-36.



Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  2. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  3. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  4. Different rules for different folks....

  5. I would strongly suggest anyone seeking mediation check the experience of the mediator. There are retired judges who decide to become mediators. Their training and experience is in making rulings which is not the point of mediation.