Landis v. State

749 N.E.2d 1130 (Ind. 2001) · Supreme Court of Indiana · June 26, 2001 · No. No. 64S05-0010-PC-570

Summary

The Supreme Court of Indiana held that a petitioner may raise an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim in post-conviction proceedings even when the direct appeal preceded the court's decision in Woods v. State, unless the claim was already litigated on direct appeal. The court nevertheless affirmed the denial of relief because overwhelming evidence supported the conviction and Landis failed to establish prejudice under Strickland v. Washington.

Court
Supreme Court of Indiana
Writing for the Court
Sullivan, Justice; Shepard, Chief Justice; Dickson, Justice; Boehm, Justice; Rucker, Justice
Jurisdiction
Indiana
Decision date
June 26, 2001
Docket number
No. 64S05-0010-PC-570
Procedural posture
Landis sought post-conviction relief from his stalking conviction based on ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court denied relief, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer to decide whether Landis's ineffective-assistance claim was barred because his direct appeal preceded Woods v. State.
Standard of review
When a post-conviction court enters findings of fact and conclusions of law, the findings must be supported by the evidence and the conclusions must be supported by the findings. Ineffective-assistance claims require proof of deficient performance and resulting prejudice under Strickland.
Precedential value
Published Indiana Supreme Court opinion; precedential
Parties
Dillard Lee Landis v. State of Indiana
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

post-conviction reliefineffective assistancestate post-conviction reliefappellate procedurecriminal procedure

Practice areas

post-conviction reliefcriminal procedureineffective assistanceappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether a defendant whose direct appeal was decided before Woods v. State may raise an ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim for the first time in post-conviction proceedings.
  2. Whether Landis established ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington.
  3. Whether the post-conviction court's findings and conclusions were supported by the evidence.

Holdings

  1. A petitioner is not barred from raising an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim in post-conviction proceedings merely because the direct appeal was decided before Woods v. State, so long as the claim was not litigated on direct appeal.
  2. Landis was not entitled to post-conviction relief because he failed to establish prejudice resulting from any alleged ineffective assistance of counsel.

Key quotations

the failure to litigate a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in a direct appeal decided before Woods precludes a petitioner from seeking post-conviction relief on that basis. (at 1133)
the failure to litigate a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in a direct appeal does not preclude a petitioner from seeking post-conviction relief on that basis, irrespective of whether the direct appeal preceded the Woods decision. (at 1133)

Factual background

Landis was convicted by a jury of stalking, a Class B misdemeanor, on December 11, 1995. He later sought post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court found that the evidence of guilt was overwhelming and concluded that Landis had not shown prejudice from counsel's alleged deficiencies.

Procedural history

Landis was convicted of stalking on December 11, 1995, and filed a petition for post-conviction relief on June 17, 1998. The post-conviction court denied the petition, including on the ground that the ineffective-assistance claim had been waived by not being raised on direct appeal. The Court of Appeals affirmed, relying on Woods and McIntire. The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer, rejected the waiver ruling, but affirmed because Landis failed to establish prejudice.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…