Kenneth Robinson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
45A04-1612-CR-2871
| Ind. Ct. App. | Apr 28, 2017Background
- In 1978 Kenneth Robinson pled guilty to two counts of murder and received consecutive 60-year sentences; he did not appeal directly.
- Robinson filed a post-conviction petition in 1986 (with counsel) challenging his sentence; it was denied and he did not appeal that denial.
- In 1996 Robinson filed a second post-conviction petition (with counsel); the post-conviction court dismissed it as a successive petition for which he had not obtained preauthorization under Post-Conviction Rule 1(12). He did not appeal that dismissal.
- In October 2016 Robinson filed another post-conviction petition, which the court dismissed as an unauthorized successive petition under Rule 1(12).
- Robinson then filed a pro se Trial Rule 60(B) motion seeking relief from the dismissal of the 2016 petition; the post-conviction court denied the motion and Robinson appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the post-conviction court abused its discretion by denying Robinson's T.R. 60(B) motion to set aside dismissal of his 2016 post-conviction petition | Robinson contended the court should set aside the dismissal and allow review of his 2016 petition | State argued the 2016 filing was an unauthorized successive petition and T.R. 60(B) is not a vehicle to evade Post-Conviction Rule 1(12) | Court held denial was proper: 2016 petition was an unauthorized successive petition and T.R. 60(B) cannot be used to circumvent Rule 1(12); affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Twin Lakes Reg’l Sewer Dist. v. Teumer, 992 N.E.2d 744 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (pro se litigants are held to same standards as attorneys)
- Shepherd v. Truex, 819 N.E.2d 457 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (pro se litigants must follow procedural rules and accept consequences)
- Perry v. Anonymous Physician, 25 N.E.3d 103 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (court will not develop or address poorly developed pro se arguments)
- Young v. State, 888 N.E.2d 1255 (Ind. 2008) (successive post-conviction petitions require permission under Post-Conviction Rule 1(12))
- Cornelius v. State, 575 N.E.2d 20 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991) (T.R. 60 may not be used to abuse the post-conviction process; must seek permission and file a new petition with Rule 1(12) form)