affirming the trial court’s dismissal of a successive post-conviction petition where the petitioner had not been given persmission to file the petition
How later courts described this case
- affirming the trial court’s dismissal of a successive post-conviction petition where the petitioner had not been given persmission to file the petition
- affirming trial court order to dismiss successive post-conviction petition where petitioner did not obtain jurisdiction to entertain petition.
- dismissal held appropriate where petitioner failed to obtain leave from appellate court before filing second PCR petition in superior court
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
DeBRULER, Justice,
dissenting.
Woodford is a member of a unique class of post-conviction petitioners. By reason of a shift in the law, this class on appeal was subjected to a legal standard which had not existed on trial. This deprivation was consistent with the promise of remedy by due course of law, art. 1, § 12, Indiana Constitution, and the promise of equal privileges and immunities to all citizens, art. 1, § 283, because this Court granted the members of this class the right to return to the trial court and to file a new post-conviction petition to which the new legal standard would be applied. White v. State (1986), Ind., 497 N.E.2d 893 . In my opinion, the right of the members of this unique class to now file under the new legal standard has been declared by this Court, is manifest; and post-conviction petitions filed in exercise of the right by the members of this class are not second or successive petitions subject to regulation by this Court or the Court of Appeals under PCR 1(12). I would therefore grant this writ.