Eric Danner v. State of Indiana - 4/3/14

Back to TopPrintE-mail
Thursday  April 3, 2014 
10:50 AM  EST

10:50 a.m. 71S03-1402-PC-73. In this post-conviction proceeding, Danner asserted that as a result of having been prosecuted for certain traffic offenses filed in a St. Joseph traffic court, he could not also be prosecuted for felony possession of cocaine and other offenses in a St. Joseph felony court.  See Danner v. State, 900 N.E.2d 9 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (affirming the felony conviction).  As a result, he argued, he had been deprived of the effective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney had not moved for dismissal of the felony court charges pursuant to the “successive prosecution statute,” Indiana Code section 35-41-4-4(a).  The post-conviction court denied relief, noting that the evidence presented at the post-conviction hearing provided no basis for determining the prevailing professional norm, given the apparently unique circumstances of the case.  The Court of Appeals affirmed in Danner v. State, No. 71A03-1304-PC-146 (Ind. Ct. App. Oct. 30, 2013) (NFP mem. dec.), vacated.  The Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer the case and has assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.

Back to Events
Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Contact Lea Shelemey attorney in porter county Indiana. She just helped us win our case...she is awesome...

  2. We won!!!! It was a long expensive battle but we did it. I just wanted people to know it is possible. And if someone can point me I. The right direction to help change the way the courts look as grandparents as only grandparents. The courts assume the parent does what is in the best interest of the child...and the court is wrong. A lot of the time it is spite and vindictiveness that separates grandparents and grandchildren. It should not have been this long and hard and expensive...Something needs to change...

  3. Typo on # of Indiana counties

  4. The Supreme Court is very proud that they are Giving a billion dollar public company from Texas who owns Odyssey a statewide monopoly which consultants have said is not unnecessary but worse they have already cost Hoosiers well over $100 MILLION, costing tens of millions every year and Odyssey is still not connected statewide which is in violation of state law. The Supreme Court is using taxpayer money and Odyssey to compete against a Hoosier company who has the only system in Indiana that is connected statewide and still has 40 of the 82 counties despite the massive spending and unnecessary attacks

  5. Here's a recent resource regarding steps that should be taken for removal from the IN sex offender registry. I haven't found anything as comprehensive as of yet. Hopefully this is helpful -