Wallace v. State

9 Citing cases

  1. Whatley v. State

    969 N.E.2d 634 (Ind. App. 2012)

    To the extent an argument within the petition is the same claim made and rejected in prior proceedings, that argument is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Wallace v. State, 820 N.E.2d 1261, 1264 (Ind.2005). When an argument is raised for the first time but could have been raised earlier either on direct appeal or in an earlier petition for post-conviction relief, the claim is procedurally defaulted for not having been presented timely. Id.

  2. Baird v. State

    831 N.E.2d 109 (Ind. 2005)   Cited 23 times
    Holding that defendant sentenced to death could not show a reasonable probability of success on the merits of his international law claim because the ICCPR did not create obligations enforceable in United States courts

    To the extent Baird's present claim is the same as those we have already decided, his present claim is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. See, e.g., Wallace v. State, 820 N.E.2d 1261, 1263 (Ind. 2005); Stevens, 770 N.E.2d at 746. To the extent the claim was available to Baird in his prior proceedings but was not raised then, the claim is procedurally defaulted.

  3. Isom v. State

    235 N.E.3d 150 (Ind. 2024)   Cited 2 times

    Res judicata thus prevents Isom from relitigating these claims. Wallace v. State, 820 N.E.2d 1261, 1263 (Ind. 2005). These six prior claims argue that:

  4. Frazier v. State

    985 N.E.2d 83 (Ind. App. 2013)

    Claims of ineffective assistance already decided adversely to the petition are barred in successive post-conviction proceedings as res judicata, which prevents the re-litigation of issues. Mat hen ey v. State, 834 N .E.2d 658, 662 (Ind.2005). The doctrine of res judicata does not bar an action if “the initial decision was clearly erroneous and would work manifest injustice,” Wallace v. State, 820 N.E.2d 1261, 1263 (Ind.2005), or if there is newly-discovered evidence. Daniels, 741 N.E.2d at 1185.

  5. Gray v. Conestoga Title Co.

    1:11-cv-01575-JMS-DKL (S.D. Ind. Jun. 6, 2012)   Cited 1 times

    That normal rule is, however, inappropriate for Mr. Gray's state-law claims against Safeguard. Mr. Gray has already sued Safeguard once admittedly over the same "facts" and "issues" that he raises here. [Dkt. 1 at 5.] He was unsuccessful in that previous suit, resulting in a judgment in Safeguard's favor that was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. A person may not file suit again over the same facts litigated in an earlier lawsuit. See Wallace v. State, 820 N.E.2d 1261, 1263 (Ind. 2005) ("The doctrine of res judicata prevents the repetitious litigation of claims that, like Wallace's, have already been decided." (citations omitted)).

  6. Matheney v. State

    834 N.E.2d 658 (Ind. 2005)   Cited 27 times
    Denying motion for DNA testing under statute imposing reasonable probability standard when results would not be more favorable to petitioner than previous testing and evidence that petitioner committed murder was "overwhelming"

    Claims that have already been decided adversely are barred from re-litigation in successive post-conviction proceedings by the doctrine of res judicata. See, e.g., Conner v. State, 829 N.E.2d 21, 25 (Ind. 2005); Wallace v. State, 820 N.E.2d 1261, 1263 (Ind. 2005). Finally, requests for DNA testing when the test results will not call into question a person's guilt or the appropriateness of the sentence are not properly presented in successive post-conviction proceedings.

  7. Jones v. State

    Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-PC-357 (Ind. App. Apr. 24, 2020)

    Claims of ineffective assistance already decided adversely to the petitioner are barred in successive post-conviction proceedings as res judicata, which prevents the re-litigation of issues. Matheney v. State, 834 N.E.2d 658, 662 (Ind. 2005). The doctrine of res judicata does not bar an action if "the initial decision was clearly erroneous and would work manifest injustice," Wallace v. State, 820 N.E.2d 1261, 1263 (Ind. 2005), or if there is newly-discovered evidence. Daniels, 741 N.E.2d at 1185.

  8. Lewicki v. State

    Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-PC-2356 (Ind. App. Jul. 10, 2019)

    Claims that have been previously raised and rejected are precluded by the res judicata doctrine. Wallace v. State, 820 N.E.2d 1261, 1263 (Ind. 2005). Here, Lewicki's appellate counsel raised issues of prosecutorial misconduct, evidence admitted at trial, and jury instructions on direct appeal.

  9. Mitchell v. State

    23 N.E.3d 865 (Ind. App. 2014)

    Matheney v. State, 834 N.E .2d 658, 662 (Ind.2005). The doctrine of res judicata does not bar an action if “the initial decision was clearly erroneous and would work manifest injustice,” Wallace v. State, 820 N.E.2d 1261, 1263 (Ind.2005), or if there is newly-discovered evidence. Daniels, 741 N.E.2d at 1185.