Sanders v. State

765 N.E.2d 591, 2002 Ind. LEXIS 273, 2002 WL 497356
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedApril 3, 2002
Docket49S02-0204-PC-223
StatusPublished
Cited by118 cases

This text of 765 N.E.2d 591 (Sanders v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Sanders v. State, 765 N.E.2d 591, 2002 Ind. LEXIS 273, 2002 WL 497356 (Ind. 2002).

Opinion

SHEPARD, Chief Justice.

Appellant Anthony Sanders was convict, ed of dealing in cocaine during a 1991 trial and found to be an habitual offender. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Sanders v. State, No. 49A02-9112-CR-563, slip op., 597 N.E.2d 890 (Ind.Ct.App. July 30, 1992).

Sanders sought post-conviction relief, asserting that the form of the "oF" ' *592 offender instruction was fundamental error and that trial and appellate counsel had been ineffective in failing to raise the error. The post-conviction court ruled against Sanders on both contentions.

The Court of Appeals reviewed the merits of both claims. It held that there had been no fundamental error and that counsel had not been ineffective. Sanders v. State, No. 49A02-0104-PC-202, slip op., 759 N.E.2d 278 (Ind.Ct.App. Oct. 81, 2001).

It was wrong to review the fundamental error claim in a post-conviction proceeding. As we explained in Canaan v. State, 683 N.E.2d 227, 285 n. 6 (Ind.1997), the fundamental error exception to the contemporaneous objection rule applies to direct appeals. In post-conviction proceedings, complaints that something went awry at trial are generally cognizable only when they show deprivation of the right to effective counsel or issues demonstrably unavailable at the time of trial or direct appeal.

We summarily affirm the Court of Appeals with respect to ineffective assistance of counsel. Ind. Appellate Rule 58(A)(2).

The post-conviction court is affirmed.

DICKSON, SULLIVAN, and BOEHM, JJ., concur. RUCKER, J., concurs in result.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Tracy Hertel v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Indiana Court of Appeals, 2016
James E. Saylor v. State of Indiana
55 N.E.3d 354 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 2016)
Christopher Rondeau v. State of Indiana
48 N.E.3d 907 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 2016)
Bill Snider v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Indiana Court of Appeals, 2015
Kyle Beals v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Indiana Court of Appeals, 2015
John R. Myers II v. State of Indiana
33 N.E.3d 1077 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 2015)
Micah D. Perryman v. State of Indiana
13 N.E.3d 923 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 2014)
Darrell McNary v. State of Indiana
Indiana Court of Appeals, 2013
William Hinesley, III v. State of Indiana
999 N.E.2d 975 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 2013)
Arthula Miller v. State of Indiana
Indiana Court of Appeals, 2013
Louis O'Neal v. State of Indiana
Indiana Court of Appeals, 2013

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
765 N.E.2d 591, 2002 Ind. LEXIS 273, 2002 WL 497356, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanders-v-state-ind-2002.