McHugh v. State

18 Citing cases

  1. Wickliffe v. Farley, (N.D.Ind. 1992)

    809 F. Supp. 618 (N.D. Ind. 1992)   Cited 4 times
    Finding that although the Seventh Circuit has not addressed the issue, a number of other circuits have and "[i]t is apparent that error in collateral state proceedings will not be the basis of habeas relief."

    A post-conviction proceeding under Post Conviction Rule 1 is a quasi-civil remedy in which the rules and statutes applicable in civil proceedings are generally available. McHugh v. State (1984), Ind., 471 N.E.2d 293, 294; P.C.R. 1, § 5. The parties agree that Trial Rule 52 is applicable to post-conviction proceedings.

  2. Tucker v. State

    517 N.E.2d 86 (Ind. 1988)   Cited 1 times

    Thus there was a conflict of evidence presented to the post-conviction court which required the judge to pass upon the credibility of the witness as compared with that of the prior record. McHugh v. State (1984), Ind., 471 N.E.2d 293. This Court will not reverse the post-conviction court unless the evidence is without conflict and leads solely to a contrary conclusion.

  3. Stroud v. State

    517 N.E.2d 780 (Ind. 1988)   Cited 7 times

    Although Stroud may have received probation he had no right to it. Probation is merely a sentencing tool available to trial judges to use when and as they wish. McHugh v. State (1984), Ind., 471 N.E.2d 293, 298; Johnson v. State (1984), Ind., 464 N.E.2d 1309, 1311; Farmer v. State (1971), 257 Ind. 511, 275 N.E.2d 783, 785-786. Therefore no constitutional issue is presented when a defendant fails to receive consideration of probation regarding a sentence provided for by the legislature.

  4. Johnson v. State

    502 N.E.2d 90 (Ind. 1986)   Cited 11 times

    The trial court's decision will be reversed only where the evidence is without conflict and leads unerringly to a result not reached by the trial court. McHugh v. State (1984), Ind., 471 N.E.2d 293, 294-295; Ind.R.P.C. 1, § 5. Our post-conviction rules provide for a special remedy where a party can present error which, for various reasons, was not available or known at the time of trial or on direct appeal. Any issue which was or could have been addressed at trial or on direct appeal is not the proper subject for post-conviction relief. Music v. State (1986), Ind., 489 N.E.2d 949, 950; Phillips v. State (1982), Ind., 441 N.E.2d 201, 203. The evidence showed that Appellant and the victim, Adell Mead, had had an altercation early in the day on June 1, 1976. That night, Appellant shot and killed the victim.

  5. Holliness v. State

    494 N.E.2d 305 (Ind. 1986)   Cited 6 times

    The trial court's decision will be reversed only where the evidence is without conflict and leads unerringly to a result not reached by the trial court. McHugh v. State (1984), Ind., 471 N.E.2d 293, 294-295; Ind.R.P.C. 1, § 5. We further note that the function of our post-conviction review is a special remedy whereby a party can present error which for various reasons was not available or known at the time of the trial or on direct appeal.

  6. Haggenjos v. State

    493 N.E.2d 448 (Ind. 1986)   Cited 19 times

    The trial court's decision will be reversed only where the evidence is without conflict and leads unerringly to a result not reached by the trial court. McHugh v. State (1984), Ind., 471 N.E.2d 293, 294-295; Ind.R.P.C. 1 § 5. The function of our post-conviction review pursuant to Ind.R.P.C. 1 is a special remedy whereby a party can present error which for various reasons was not available or known at the time of trial or on direct appeal. Phillips v. State (1982), Ind., 441 N.E.2d 201, 203. Post-conviction action is not a substitute for direct appeal, and any issue which was or could have been addressed at trial or on direct appeal is not the proper subject of a post-conviction action. See Morris v. State (1984), Ind., 466 N.E.2d 13, 14.

  7. Patterson v. State

    491 N.E.2d 197 (Ind. 1986)

    The trial court's decision will be reversed only where the evidence is without conflict and leads unerringly to a result not reached by the trial court. McHugh v. State (1984), Ind., 471 N.E.2d 293, 294-295; Ind. R.P.C. 1, § 5. Since Appellant pleaded guilty and was sentenced prior to December 3, 1981, this case is governed by Neeley v. State (1978), 269 Ind. 588, 596, 382 N.E.2d 714, 718, wherein we held that the entire record should be used to determine if the petitioner was fully advised of and understood his constitutional rights.

  8. Douglas v. State

    490 N.E.2d 270 (Ind. 1986)   Cited 6 times

    The trial court's decision will be reversed only where the evidence is without conflict and leads unerringly to a result not reached by the trial court. McHugh v. State (1984), Ind., 471 N.E.2d 293, 294-295; Ind.R.P.C. 1, § 5. I

  9. Estep v. State

    486 N.E.2d 492 (Ind. 1985)   Cited 5 times

    In reviewing a denial of post-conviction we will not set aside the trial court's ruling unless the evidence is without conflict and leads solely to a result different from that reached by the trial court. McHugh v. State (1984), Ind., 471 N.E.2d 293, 294-295. I

  10. Bivins v. State

    485 N.E.2d 89 (Ind. 1985)   Cited 19 times
    Holding that party who did not object to irregularity in the appointment of a special judge waived his objection to the irregularity

    We will not set aside the trial court's ruling on the post-conviction petition unless the evidence is without conflict and leads solely to a result different from that reached by the trial court. McHugh v. State (1984), Ind., 471 N.E.2d 293, 294-295. Appellant filed his first pro se Petition for Post-Conviction Relief on July 1, 1982, alleging incompetency of counsel and inadequate time to prepare for trial.