Steven Robbins v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION ON REHEARING

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Aug 16 2019, 8:43 am

court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK Indiana Supreme Court the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals and Tax Court estoppel, or the law of the case.

APPELLANT PRO SE ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Steven Robbins Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Pendleton, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana Monika Prekopa Talbot Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Steven Robbins, August 16, 2019 Appellant-Petitioner, Court of Appeals Case No. 49A04-1709-PC-2143 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Kurt M. Eisgruber, Appellee-Respondent Judge Trial Court Cause No. 49G01-0205-PC-140250

Baker, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Mem. Dec. on Rehearing 49A04-1709-PC-2143 | August 16, 2019 Page 1 of 2 [1] Steven Robbins has filed a petition for rehearing in this cause. We grant the

petition for the limited purpose of correcting two statements made in our

original decision. We stated that trial counsel had “reviewed all discovery

provided by the State and conducted a considerable amount of discovery,

including taking five depositions and other witness interviews.” Robbins v. State,

No. 49A04-1709-PC-2143, at slip op. p. 6 (Ind. Ct. App. June 13, 2019).

Evidently, when trial counsel took over the case, Robbins’s first attorney had

already conducted the discovery. So, while trial counsel reviewed all of the

discovery available, she, herself, did not actually take depositions or take any

discovery.

[2] Second, we stated that “there is no evidence in the record that counsel had any

knowledge of Charrece’s existence.” Id. at 7. Apparently, Charrece’s name did

appear on one document in a voluminous record; specifically, her name was on

the police Incident History Detail report.

[3] We hereby correct those two statements that we made in error. This does not,

however, change our view of what the outcome should be. Our original result

stands and we deny the petition for rehearing in all respects other than what we

had already addressed herein.

May, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Mem. Dec. on Rehearing 49A04-1709-PC-2143 | August 16, 2019 Page 2 of 2