Anthony D. Moore v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 45A05-1412-PC-554

In 2011 Anthony D. Moore was convicted of murdering Isaiah Claxton; conviction affirmed on direct appeal (Dorelle-Moore v. State).
Moore filed a post-conviction relief (PCR) petition arguing the State violated Brady by failing to disclose a witness’s prior conversion conviction (Anon Burnett) and alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel for not investigating or using that conviction to impeach Burnett.
The State conceded Burnett’s prior conversion conviction was impeachment evidence but contended nondisclosure was inadvertent and not material.
Defense counsel had deposed Burnett pretrial; Burnett described prior misconduct and jail/probation, which the court found put counsel on notice of a possible conviction.
Multiple eyewitnesses corroborated that Moore shot Claxton and saw Moore leave holding a gun; defense relied on attacking Burnett’s credibility via mental-health questions at trial rather than the alleged prior conviction.
The post-conviction court denied relief; the Court of Appeals affirmed, finding no Brady suppression or prejudice from counsel’s choices.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Brady violation — nondisclosure of Burnett’s prior conversion conviction	Moore: State suppressed impeaching conviction evidence in violation of Brady	State: Evidence was inadvertently not disclosed but not material; defense had notice via deposition	No Brady violation: court found deposition put defense on notice and, in any event, the conviction was not material to undermine outcome
Materiality of withheld evidence	Moore: The prior conviction would have impeached Burnett and changed the verdict	State: Burnett’s testimony was corroborated and impeachment of general veracity would not change outcome	Not material: impeachment would not reasonably have altered confidence in verdict given corroboration and other evidence
Ineffective assistance — failure to investigate/impeach with conviction	Moore: Trial counsel was deficient for not further investigating or using Burnett’s conviction	State: Counsel’s choices were strategic and not prejudicial; overwhelming evidence of guilt	No prejudice shown: even if counsel erred, Moore cannot show reasonable probability of different outcome
Standard of review for PCR denial	Moore: PCR court erred in factual/legal conclusions	State: PCR findings entitled to deference on facts; conclusions of law reviewed de novo	Affirmed: appellate court accepts PCR factual findings unless clearly erroneous and upheld denial

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose favorable material evidence to defendant)
United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (Brady materiality standard: reasonable probability undermining confidence in outcome)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Conner v. State, 711 N.E.2d 1238 (Ind. 1999) (no suppression if evidence available through reasonable diligence)
Bunch v. State, 964 N.E.2d 274 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (application of Brady/Conner principles in Indiana PCR context)
Stevens v. State, 770 N.E.2d 739 (Ind. 2002) (burden and review standards in post-conviction proceedings)
Dorelle-Moore v. State, 968 N.E.2d 287 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (Moore’s direct-appeal opinion describing facts of the underlying conviction)