COA replaces opinion on post-conviction ruling with corrected version

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Acknowledging that the state is correct when it claims the Indiana Court of Appeals relied on the wrong Supreme Court decision in affirming the denial of a petition for post-conviction relief, the appellate court issued a new opinion Wednesday.

In Everett Sweet v. State of Indiana, 35A02-1305-PC-451, the state, although victorious in the original decision affirming the denial of Everett Sweet’s petition for post-conviction relief, asked for a rehearing because it claimed the COA mistakenly relied on Norris v. State, 896 N.E.2d 1149 (Ind. 2008), instead of Helton v. State,  907 N.E.2d 1020 (Ind. 2009).

The Court of Appeals agreed and vacated its prior opinion.  It substituted that opinion with the one it issued Wednesday on rehearing.

“The state is correct. Norris involved a petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Indiana Post-Conviction Rule 1(a)(4), whereas Helton, like Sweet’s appeal, involved a petition filed pursuant to Rule 1(a)(1),” Judge Edward Najam wrote.


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. "pedigree"? I never knew that in order to become a successful or, for that matter, a talented attorney, one needs to have come from good stock. What should raise eyebrows even more than the starting associates' pay at this firm (and ones like it) is the belief systems they subscribe to re who is and isn't "fit" to practice law with them. Incredible the arrogance that exists throughout the practice of law in this country, especially at firms like this one.

  2. Finally, an official that realizes that reducing the risks involved in the indulgence in illicit drug use is a great way to INCREASE the problem. What's next for these idiot 'proponents' of needle exchange programs? Give drunk drivers booze? Give grossly obese people coupons for free junk food?

  3. That comment on this e-site, which reports on every building, courtroom or even insignificant social movement by beltway sycophants as being named to honor the yet-quite-alive former chief judge, is truly laughable!

  4. Is this a social parallel to the Mosby prosecutions in Baltimore? Progressive ideology ever seeks Pilgrims to burn at the stake. (I should know.)

  5. The Conour embarrassment is an example of why it would be a good idea to NOT name public buildings or to erect monuments to "worthy" people until AFTER they have been dead three years, at least. And we also need to stop naming federal buildings and roads after a worthless politician whose only achievement was getting elected multiple times (like a certain Congressman after whom we renamed the largest post office in the state). Also, why have we renamed BOTH the Center Township government center AND the new bus terminal/bum hangout after Julia Carson?