Background

• Garrett was charged with rape (Counts 1 and 2), criminal deviate conduct, and criminal confinement; the jury acquitted Counts 1, 3, and 5 and deadlocked on Counts 2 and 4.
• Counts 2 and 4 were retried to the bench on June 5, 2008, after the hung jury on the first trial.
• A.W. identified Garrett on the second trial; DNA matched Garrett and he was linked to the rape; he was convicted on retrial for the second rape-related charges.
• Garrett filed a post-conviction relief petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial and direct appeal counsel for failing to raise double jeopardy challenges at federal and state levels.
• The post-conviction court denied relief; Garrett appealed challenging those denials on the basis of ineffective assistance for double jeopardy claims.
• The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the retrial did not violate federal or state double jeopardy principles and that collateral estoppel, not the actual evidence test, applied in this context.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Griffin v. State, 717 N.E.2d 73 (Ind. 1999) (re federal double jeopardy when underlying facts differ)
• McIntire v. State, 717 N.E.2d 96 (Ind. 1999) (same-offense analysis under Blockburger)
• Lee v. State, 892 N.E.2d 1231 (Ind. 2008) (ineffective assistance standard; Strickland adopted)
• Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (deficient performance and prejudice required for ineffective assistance)
• Henley v. State, 881 N.E.2d 639 (Ind. 2008) (same standard for trial and appellate ineffective claims)
• Ritchie v. State, 875 N.E.2d 706 (Ind. 2007) (presumption of effectiveness; need strong evidence to overcome)
• Carter v. State, 929 N.E.2d 1276 (Ind. 2010) (categories of appellate-ineffectiveness claims)
• Hall v. State, 849 N.E.2d 466 (Ind. 2006) (standard for appellate review of post-conviction matters)
• Nicoson v. State, 938 N.E.2d 660 (Ind. 2010) (double jeopardy analysis under Indiana Constitution)
• Sloan v. State, 947 N.E.2d 917 (Ind. 2011) (elements-based approach to same-offense analysis)
• Vestal v. State, 773 N.E.2d 805 (Ind. 2002) (actual evidence test discussion in collateral contexts)
• Buggs v. State, 844 N.E.2d 195 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (collateral estoppel in double jeopardy context; no actual evidence test here)
• Brinkman v. State, 57 Ind. 76 (Ind. 1877) (distinguishable from collateral estoppel approach)
• Coleman v. State, 946 N.E.2d 1160 (Ind. 2011) (collateral estoppel and double jeopardy interplay)
• Brown v. State, 912 N.E.2d 881 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (statutory elements test aligned with Blockburger analysis)