Corcoran v. State, No. 02S00-0304-PD-00143.

Docket NºNo. 02S00-0304-PD-00143.
Citation827 N.E.2d 542
Case DateMay 12, 2005
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

827 N.E.2d 542

Joseph E. CORCORAN, Appellant (Plaintiff below),
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Defendant below)

No. 02S00-0304-PD-00143.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

May 12, 2005.


827 N.E.2d 543
Susan K. Carpenter, Public Defender of Indiana, Joanna McFadden, Deputy Public Defender, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellant

Steve Carter, Attorney General of Indiana, Stephen R. Creason, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

SULLIVAN, Justice.

Joseph E. Corcoran filed a Petition for Rehearing on February 10, 2005, asking us to reconsider our decision of January 11, 2005.1 In that decision, we had affirmed the post-conviction court's determination that Corcoran was competent to waive collateral review of convictions for four murders and sentence of death. Corcoran v. State, 820 N.E.2d 655, 662 (Ind.2005).

Some background is helpful in understanding the present posture of this unusual case. A person whose Indiana death sentence is affirmed on direct appeal is entitled to seek collateral review—called "post-conviction relief"—under rules (including time deadlines) promulgated by this Court. See Ind.Crim. Rule 24(H); Post-Conviction Rule 1. When the time came for Corcoran to seek post-conviction relief, he declined the opportunity, indicating that he believed he should be put to death for his crimes. He waived any further legal review of his convictions and sentence.

When that happened, the State Public Defender took the position that Corcoran was not competent to make that decision. The post-conviction court considered that proposition but found Corcoran to be competent. The State Public Defender appealed that determination. While the Public Defender's appeal was pending before us, Corcoran recanted his waiver of further review and sought dismissal of the appeal so that he could seek collateral review after all. We denied Corcoran's request for dismissal of the appeal, Corcoran, 820 N.E.2d at 658, and we affirmed the post-conviction court's ruling that Corcoran was competent. Id. at 662.

In the Petition for Rehearing, Corcoran makes two broad claims. First, he contends that in denying his request that his appeal be dismissed so that he could seek collateral relief in the post-conviction court, we violated his federal and state constitutional rights to due process, to equal protection, to open access to courts,

827 N.E.2d 544
and to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Second, he argues that we were incorrect to affirm the post-conviction court's finding that he was competent

As to the second of these claims, Corcoran asks that we revisit territory that we covered with care in our original decision. We have given due consideration to his request but find no basis to alter our original analysis or conclusion.

We do find, however, grounds to address his first claim concerning our denial of his request that his appeal be dismissed so that he could seek collateral relief in the post-conviction court. We grant rehearing for that purpose.

In our opinion rejecting Corcoran's request to dismiss his appeal and remand the case to the post-conviction court for further proceedings, we said that "petitions for post-conviction relief in capital cases must be filed within 30 days following completion of rehearing." Corcoran, 820 N.E.2d at 658 (footnote omitted). Corcoran accurately points out that this statement misstates the requirements of Indiana Criminal Rule 24(H). Rather than directing that "petitions for post-conviction relief in capital cases must be filed within 30 days following completion of rehearing" as we said in the opinion, Indiana Criminal Rule 24(H) (which was correctly quoted elsewhere in our opinion) requires counsel for a petitioner for post-conviction relief in a capital case to file an appearance within 30 days following the completion of rehearing (Corcoran's lawyers met this requirement) and then requires the petitioner to file the petition itself by the date set forth in a case management schedule submitted to the trial court and approved by this Court.

This mistake does not affect our analysis or conclusion, however. In Corcoran's case, the post-conviction court established a case management schedule requiring Corcoran to file a petition for post-conviction relief on or before September 9, 2003. We approved this schedule by Order dated May 30, 2003. As discussed in our prior opinion, Corcoran refused to sign a petition; the State Public Defender filed a petition for post-conviction relief on September 9, 2003, unsigned by Corcoran; and the post-conviction court properly refused to allow the petition because it was unsigned. Our opinion correctly stated the fact that Corcoran had failed to file a petition for post-conviction relief by the deadline set by rule; we were incorrect only in describing the deadline.

As we noted in our original opinion, it is a matter first for the post-conviction court to rule on whether any particular petition for post-conviction relief is timely, i.e., filed within the deadline set by the case management order...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • Corcoran v. Buss, No. 07-2093.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • 31 Diciembre 2008
    ...affirmed the post-conviction court's competency determination. See Corcoran v. State, 820 551 F.3d 707 N.E.2d 655, 662, aff'd on reh'g, 827 N.E.2d 542 (Ind.2005) (Corcoran III); In doing so, the court considered: (1) the testimony of the experts, each of whom concluded that his decision to ......
  • Corcoran v. Buss, No. 3:05-CV-389 AS.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Indiana
    • 9 Abril 2007
    ...739 N.E.2d 649 (Ind. 2000) Corcoran v. State, 774 N.E.2d 495 (Ind. 2002) Corcoran v. State, 820 N.E.2d 655 (Ind. 2005) Corcoran v. State, 827 N.E.2d 542 (Ind. Corcoran v. State, 845 N.E.2d 1019 (Ind. 2006) Each will be discussed later in this opinion as necessary. The state record has been ......
  • Corcoran v. Buss, CAUSE NO. 3:05-CV-389 JD
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Indiana
    • 10 Enero 2013
    ...Supreme Court affirmed the post-conviction court's competency determination. See Corcoran v. State, 820 N.E.2d 655, 662, aff'd on reh'g, 827 N.E.2d 542 (Ind. 2005) ("Corcoran III"). In doing so, the court considered: (1) the testimony of the experts, each of whom concluded that his decision......
  • Ward v. State, No. 74S00-0707-DP-263.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 7 Abril 2009
    ...with undue risk for discrimination and mistake (rejected in Corcoran v. State, 739 N.E.2d 649, 651-53 (Ind.2000), reh'g granted, 827 N.E.2d 542 (Ind.2005); and Harrison v. State, 644 N.E.2d 1243, 1257-58 (Ind.1995), superseded on other grounds as recognized in Allen v. State, 737 N.E.2d 741......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • Corcoran v. Buss, No. 07-2093.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • 31 Diciembre 2008
    ...affirmed the post-conviction court's competency determination. See Corcoran v. State, 820 551 F.3d 707 N.E.2d 655, 662, aff'd on reh'g, 827 N.E.2d 542 (Ind.2005) (Corcoran III); In doing so, the court considered: (1) the testimony of the experts, each of whom concluded that his decision to ......
  • Corcoran v. Buss, No. 3:05-CV-389 AS.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Indiana
    • 9 Abril 2007
    ...739 N.E.2d 649 (Ind. 2000) Corcoran v. State, 774 N.E.2d 495 (Ind. 2002) Corcoran v. State, 820 N.E.2d 655 (Ind. 2005) Corcoran v. State, 827 N.E.2d 542 (Ind. Corcoran v. State, 845 N.E.2d 1019 (Ind. 2006) Each will be discussed later in this opinion as necessary. The state record has been ......
  • Corcoran v. Buss, CAUSE NO. 3:05-CV-389 JD
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Indiana
    • 10 Enero 2013
    ...Supreme Court affirmed the post-conviction court's competency determination. See Corcoran v. State, 820 N.E.2d 655, 662, aff'd on reh'g, 827 N.E.2d 542 (Ind. 2005) ("Corcoran III"). In doing so, the court considered: (1) the testimony of the experts, each of whom concluded that his decision......
  • Ward v. State, No. 74S00-0707-DP-263.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 7 Abril 2009
    ...with undue risk for discrimination and mistake (rejected in Corcoran v. State, 739 N.E.2d 649, 651-53 (Ind.2000), reh'g granted, 827 N.E.2d 542 (Ind.2005); and Harrison v. State, 644 N.E.2d 1243, 1257-58 (Ind.1995), superseded on other grounds as recognized in Allen v. State, 737 N.E.2d 741......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT