Opinion · Indiana Supreme Court
Sanders v. State
2002 Ind. LEXIS 273
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Indiana Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- Indiana
- Date
- 2002-04-03
- Topic
- general
holding that, generally, post-conviction complaints that something went awry at trial are cognizable only when they show deprivation of the right to effective counsel or issues demonstrably unavailable at the time of trial or direct appeal | noting claims of fundamental error raised in post-conviction petition but known and available on direct appeal are waived | claim of fundamental error is default, ed unless brought at the appropriate time | “it [is] wrong to review [a] fundamental error claim in a post-conviction proceeding.” | in post-conviction proceedings, complaints that something went awry at trial are generally cognizable only when they show deprivation of the right to effective counsel or issues demonstrably unavailable at the time of trial or direct appeal | “In post-conviction proceedings, complaints that something went awry at trial are generally cognizable only when they show deprivation of the right to effective counsel or issues demonstrably unavailable at the time of trial or direct appeal.”
Citator
- Cited by
- 44 opinions
Appellant Anthony Sanders was convict, ed of dealing in cocaine during a 1991 trial and found to be an habitual offender. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Sanders v. State, No. 49A02-9112-CR-563, slip op., 597 N.E.2d 890 (Ind.Ct.App. July 30, 1992).
Sanders sought post-conviction relief, asserting that the form of the "oF" ' *592 offender instruction was fundamental error and that trial and appellate counsel had been ineffective in failing to raise the error. The post-conviction court ruled against Sanders on both contentions.
The Court of Appeals reviewed the merits of both claims. It held that there had been no fundamental error and that counsel had not been ineffective. Sanders v. State, No. 49A02-0104-PC-202, slip op., 759 N.E.2d 278 (Ind.Ct.App. Oct. 81, 2001).
It was wrong to review the fundamental error claim in a post-conviction proceeding. As we explained in Canaan v. State, 683 N.E.2d 227, 285 n. 6 (Ind.1997), the fundamental error exception to the contemporaneous objection rule applies to direct appeals. In post-conviction proceedings, complaints that something went awry at trial are generally cognizable only when they show deprivation of the right to effective counsel or issues demonstrably unavailable at the time of trial or direct appeal.
We summarily affirm the Court of Appeals with respect to ineffective assistance of counsel. Ind. Appellate Rule 58(A)(2).
The post-conviction court is affirmed.
DICKSON, SULLIVAN, and BOEHM, JJ., concur. RUCKER, J., concurs in result.