ILNews

Man cannot challenge evidence underlying conviction through PCR

Jennifer Nelson
December 6, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A man sentenced to 18 years after pleading guilty to a methamphetamine charge may not collaterally challenge the evidence underlying his conviction through a petition for post-conviction relief, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Friday.

The judges affirmed the denial of Everett Sweet’s pro se petition for post-conviction relief from his Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine conviction. He was charged after Jason Weinley found a mobile meth lab in Sweet’s backpack, which was at Weinley’s house.

Weinley was never questioned about his relationship with the Huntington Police Department, for which Sweet says he is a paid informant.

“Sweet asserts that his conviction must be reversed because, had his counsel not rendered ineffective assistance, his motion to suppress the State’s evidence would have been granted. This is, in effect, a challenge to the evidence underlying Sweet’s conviction,” Judge Edward Najam wrote in Everett Sweet v. State of Indiana, 35A02-1305-PC-451. “But Sweet’s conviction is based on his own guilty plea and the factual basis underlying his plea. Accordingly, he may not challenge the evidence underlying his conviction in the post-conviction forum. And Sweet does not suggest that, independent of his counsel’s alleged ineffective assistance, his guilty plea was neither counseled nor voluntary.

“In sum, our post-conviction rules do not permit a defendant who has pleaded guilty to collaterally challenge the evidence underlying his conviction.”
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT