Williams v. State, PS

Decision Date21 December 1982
Docket NumberNo. PS,PS
PartiesBill WILLIAMS, Appellant (Defendant Below) v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below). 474.
CourtIndiana Supreme Court

Bill Williams, appellant pro se.

Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Ind., William E. Daily, Deputy Atty. Gen., Chief Counsel, Indianapolis, for appellee.

PRENTICE, Justice.

This is an appeal from the denial of post conviction relief. Petitioner (Appellant) was first convicted in 1978 of rape of a child under twelve years of age, sodomy and incest. On direct appeal, all of his numerous assignments of trial court error were determined to be without merit, save one. We reversed the judgment of the trial court for the trial court's error in failing to read the final instructions to the jury. Williams v. State, (1978) 269 Ind. 430, 381 N.E.2d 458.

Upon retrial, in April of 1979, the petitioner was again convicted of the same three offenses and was sentenced to life imprisonment, two (2) to fourteen (14) years and two (2) to twenty-one (21) years. Those convictions were affirmed in his direct appeal reported at 406 N.E.2d 241.

By his petition for post conviction relief from the second judgments, Petitioner presented fourteen issues. Following an evidentiary hearing, the hearing judge filed his findings of facts and conclusions from which it appears that the law was with the State and against Petitioner, that seven of such issues had been waived as grounds for post conviction relief because available and not presented upon the direct appeal, that three of such issues were not such as would, if found in Petitioner's favor, entitle him to relief and that Petitioner had failed to carry his burden of proof upon four of such issues.

Proceeding pro se, Petitioner has presented a morass of assorted accusations, legalistic maxims and miscellaneous citations which collectively disclose his unmitigated ignorance of the limitations of post conviction and appellate proceedings. We, nevertheless, have determined, with considerable difficulty and at great expense of judicial time, that Petitioner seeks reversal of the post conviction judgment upon the basis of the following alleged errors:

I

His arrest was unlawful, having been made without a warrant or probable cause. Searches, if any, were also unlawful for the same reason. Errors, if any, under this claim were not available in the post conviction proceedings but, if meritorious, were required to be claimed at trial and presented on the direct appeal. Further, there is no claim that any evidence came in at trial by virtue of either his arrest or any search.

II

His attorney on direct appeal was incompetent or uncooperative and ineffective in that he failed or refused to present the issues of "(1) No probable cause for arrest. 2. Unlawful arrest without a warrant. 3. Unlawful search and seizure of my home without a search warrant, of probable cause and the kidnapping of my five children without an arrest warrant or search warrant. 4. All evidence used to convict me was a product of that illegal search and seizure,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Williams v. Duckworth
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana
    • 1 Febrero 1985
    ...December 21, 1983, the trial court was upheld on the denial of the post conviction petition, unanimously, in a published opinion at 442 N.E.2d 1063 (1982). Petitioner raises the following issues in this application for habeas 1. Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 2. Fifth A......
  • Stroud v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • 5 Marzo 1992
    ...his trial and on direct appeal precludes our consideration of this issue in a post-conviction proceeding. Id., citing Williams v. State (1982), Ind., 442 N.E.2d 1063 and Ind. R.P.C. For the reasons stated, we hold that Stroud has waived consideration of this issue. AFFIRMED. BARTEAU and CON......
  • Hewell v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • 11 Febrero 1987
    ...when a new trial is ordered to rectify a trial error. Richardson v. State (1985), Ind.App., 486 N.E.2d 1058, 1065; Williams v. State (1982), Ind., 442 N.E.2d 1063. Hewell claims his first conviction was reversed on grounds of insufficient evidence. Where the reviewing court finds a clear fa......
  • Gee v. State, 584S162
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • 26 Diciembre 1984
    ...and during trial and on direct appeal precludes the consideration of these issues in a post-conviction proceeding. Williams v. State, (1982) Ind., 442 N.E.2d 1063; Ind.R.P.C. 1. However, the trial court held that the petition raised a question of fundamental error. We do not agree, but will......

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