David W. Erickson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 20A03-1701-PC-140

In 2007 David W. Erickson pled guilty to Class A felony attempted murder for stabbing T.P.; counsel at plea and sentencing was Brent Zook.
Erickson admitted intent to kill and the stabbing; sentencing followed a psychological evaluation by Dr. Paul Yoder and resulted in a 40-year term.
Years later (2016) Erickson filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to advise him of an automatism/involuntariness defense before his guilty plea.
Erickson pointed to his later statements claiming a blackout during the attack and to Dr. Yoder’s evaluation as supporting an automatism defense.
The post-conviction court held an evidentiary hearing, found Erickson failed to prove counsel was deficient or that he was prejudiced, and denied relief; Erickson appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not advising Erickson of an automatism/involuntariness defense before his guilty plea	Erickson: counsel never met/discussed defenses and failed to advise him of a viable automatism defense (he later claimed a blackout)	State: record shows Erickson gave detailed contemporaneous statements contradicting blackout; Dr. Yoder did not conclude lack of intent or involuntariness; automatism was not a viable defense here	Court held counsel was not ineffective because automatism was not a viable defense under the facts, so Erickson failed both the deficient-performance and prejudice prongs

Bethea v. State, 983 N.E.2d 1134 (Ind. 2013) (standard and burden on appeal from denial of post-conviction relief)
McClain v. State, 678 N.E.2d 104 (Ind. 1997) (defines automatism/involuntariness)
McCary v. State, 761 N.E.2d 389 (Ind. 2002) (ineffective assistance standard explained)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-pronged ineffective assistance test)
Kubsch v. State, 934 N.E.2d 1138 (Ind. 2010) (reasonable-probability definition for prejudice)
Segura v. State, 749 N.E.2d 496 (Ind. 2001) (guilty-plea ineffective assistance prejudice requirement)