Holliness v. State, 985S386

Citation496 N.E.2d 1281
Decision Date25 August 1986
Docket NumberNo. 985S386,985S386
PartiesJames Rufus HOLLINESS, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

Susan K. Carpenter, Public Defender of Indiana, Linda Rodriguez-Torrent, Deputy Public Defender, Indianapolis, for appellant.

Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Richard C. Webster, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

PIVARNIK, Justice.

Petitioner James R. Holliness petitions for rehearing pursuant to App.R. 11(A), claiming this Court's opinion, 494 N.E.2d 305, is erroneous in that it: 1) affirmed the trial court's sua sponte summary denial of Holliness' pro se petition for post-conviction relief sixty-one days after counsel entered an appearance, which deprived Holliness of due process of law as he was without notice that his pro se petition was subject to summary denial prior to amendment by counsel; 2) denied Petitioner his right to the effective assistance of post-conviction counsel as counsel had no notice that an amendment to the petition was required to be filed within sixty-one days; and 3) abrogated the right to post-conviction counsel and to post-conviction relief in general, in contravention of Ind.R.P.C. 1 Secs. 1, 4, and 9, since it denied him the opportunity to present all trial errors as a basis for relief.

Also filed in support of this Petition is a brief by the Public Defender of Indiana as Amicus Curiae. The Public Defender points out that the opinion can be read to create a presumption that sixty days is an adequate period for investigation and amendment, if necessary, of a pro se petition, and if the opinion is so read, it will place unreasonable burdens on indigent defendants and the Public Defender's office to meet such requirements, because of the extremely large number of cases handled by that office. The Public Defender points out that pro se filings of post-conviction relief result in appearances being entered and files being opened immediately. There also are those who request assistance but do not file pro se petitions and are on a waiting list.

Cases after trial and appeal, like Petitioner's case here, require a great deal of time since the client must be interviewed, his appellate record read, his trial and appellate attorneys interviewed, and all matters of legal and factual manner investigated before a decision can be made as to amendment of his petition. The permitting of a summary dismissal therefore, particularly within such a limited period as sixty days, is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Johnson-El v. Superintendent
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana
    • March 15, 2017
    ...enter an order of dismissal at plaintiff's costs if the plaintiff shall not show cause at or before such hearing.In Holliness v. State, 496 N.E.2d 1281, 1282 (Ind. 1986), our Supreme Court held that "dismissal after the Public Defender has made an appearance on behalf of the pro se petition......
  • Joseph v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • November 23, 1992
    ...allegations of error in the original petition and in proper form, so far "as is reasonably and humanly possible." Holliness v. State (1986), Ind., 496 N.E.2d 1281, 1282. The rules require more than the petition's mere referral to the public defender, however. The public defender must be aff......
  • Clay v. State, 46A03-8810-PC-317
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • February 13, 1989
    ...quite to the contrary frustrates this important goal." Holliness v. State (1986), Ind., 494 N.E.2d 305, 307, rev'd. on rehearing 496 N.E.2d 1281. In light of the purpose of these provisions, it is clear that Clay's argument is without merit due to the fact that his is a second petition for ......
  • Hamilton v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • August 11, 1993
    ...allegations of error in the original petition. It is the best way of rendering successive petitions unnecessary. Holliness v. State (1986), Ind., 496 N.E.2d 1281, 1282. However, the same was and is not true as to second and subsequent petitions. Prior to the addition of Section 12 to the ru......
  • 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