Graham v. State
2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 677
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- The State petitions for rehearing after our Graham v. State decision remanding for reevaluation of an allegedly illusory or involuntary plea and potential ineffective assistance claims.
- The rehearing focuses on how evidentiary records are created and preserved in post-conviction relief (PCR) proceedings.
- Graham stated at the PCR hearing that he had brought the complete record for the court, but that record was never entered into evidence or transmitted on appeal.
- The PCR court referenced and relied on Graham’s guilty-plea and sentencing transcripts, yet those materials were not formally made part of the PCR record or appellate record.
- We held that if a petitioner provides part of the trial record to the PCR court, the court should ensure it is entered into evidence to avoid waiver and to permit appellate review.
- We grant rehearing to reaffirm our original decision, noting Graham’s record was relied upon but not properly admitted, and that the PCR court should properly incorporate such records or reject using them without formal entry.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Must PCR courts admit brought records as evidence? | Graham’s records were brought to PCR court. | PCR court need not enter records if party does not request formal admission. | Yes; court should admit records brought by a pro se petitioner. |
| Can a PCR court take judicial notice of other court records without making them part of the PCR record? | PCR court relied on prior records via judicial notice. | Judicial notice of prior records is acceptable under rules in some contexts. | Judicial notice may be used, but records relied on must be part of the PCR record for appeal. |
| Does reliance on non-admitted records prejudice appellate review? | Graham was prejudiced if records aren’t in the PCR or appellate record. | Record usage is permissible if parties rely on it at hearing. | Prejudice avoided only if records are formally part of the record on appeal. |
| Do Evans, Lime, and Mitchell control how records and judicial notice are treated in Graham’s PCR? | Graham’s situation aligns with Lime and Mitchell where records were used in PCR. | Evans holds courts need not assist pro se litigants in presenting evidence. | Graham's scenario is consistent with Lime and Mitchell; Evans is distinguishable; records must be properly incorporated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Evans v. State, 809 N.E.2d 338 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (no duty to aid pro se litigants when no evidence is presented)
- Lime v. State, 619 N.E.2d 601 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993) (reliance on trial transcripts in PCR; improper if not entered but context matters)
- Mitchell v. State, 946 N.E.2d 640 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (pro se petitioner failed to present trial record; no error in PCR denial)
- Douglas v. State, 800 N.E.2d 599 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (judicial notice limitations discussed)