State of Indiana v. Robert Collier
61 N.E.3d 265
Ind.2016Background
- In 1997 Robert Collier pled guilty to class D felony cocaine possession; sentence included DOC time, partially suspended, and probation.
- Collier filed a pro se post-conviction petition in 2001 requesting appointed counsel; counsel was appointed but that petition was later withdrawn in 2005 after procedural developments.
- In 2007 Collier filed another pro se post-conviction petition, again requested appointed counsel and submitted an affidavit of indigence; the court summarily denied the petition but did not refer it to the State Public Defender as required by Post-Conviction Rule 1(2).
- Collier repeatedly sought copies of court orders and records between 2008–2012; he did not obtain counsel capable of filing an effective challenge until years later.
- In 2015, with counsel, Collier filed a Verified Motion for Relief from Judgment under Indiana Trial Rule 60(B)(8), arguing the court’s failure to refer his 2007 petition to the Public Defender and his limited education/cognitive difficulties justified relief and that he had a meritorious ineffective-assistance/plea-voluntariness claim.
- The post‑conviction court granted relief, the State successfully moved for reconsideration below but after hearings the court reinstated Collier’s 2007 petition; the Court of Appeals reversed on timeliness grounds and the Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Collier) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Collier’s T.R. 60(B)(8) motion was filed within a reasonable time | Delay excused by incarceration, lack of education, limited resources, and cognitive/mental deficits; could not obtain meaningful counsel because court failed to refer petition to Public Defender | Motion untimely (7½ years after 2007 denial); State prejudiced and Collier should have filed a successive PCR instead | Motion was filed within a reasonable time given circumstances; timeliness satisfied |
| Whether extraordinary/exceptional circumstances exist to justify 60(B)(8) relief | Court’s failure to send petition to State Public Defender per Post‑Conviction Rule 1(2) was an error outside Collier’s control; that omission plus Collier’s disabilities are extraordinary | No extraordinary circumstances; mere delay and procedural options were available to Collier | Court’s failure to refer petition combined with Collier’s limitations constituted extraordinary circumstances justifying relief |
| Whether Collier alleged a meritorious claim | Verified amended petition alleges ineffective assistance of counsel and that plea was not knowing/voluntary (counsel failed to advise felony risk and seek misdemeanor alternatives) | Claims are untimely or procedurally barred; State disputes merit | Allegations are sufficiently meritorious to warrant adjudication on the merits if reinstated |
| Whether post‑conviction court abused its discretion in granting 60(B)(8) relief | Equitable relief appropriate to correct court’s prior procedural error and to allow claim to be heard on merits | Grant was an abuse of discretion because of delay and prejudice to State | No abuse of discretion; reinstatement affirmed to allow meaningful post‑conviction review |
Key Cases Cited
- Gipson v. Gipson, 644 N.E.2d 876 (Ind. 1994) (abuse-of-discretion standard for Trial Rule 60 decisions)
- McElfresh v. State, 51 N.E.3d 103 (Ind. 2016) (definition of abuse of discretion)
- Fairrow v. Fairrow, 559 N.E.2d 597 (Ind. 1990) (timeliness for Rule 60(B) evaluated in light of unusual circumstances)
- Parham v. Parham, 855 N.E.2d 722 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (what constitutes a reasonable time depends on circumstances and prejudice)
- State v. Huffman, 643 N.E.2d 899 (Ind. 1994) (prioritizing fairness over finality when appropriate)
- Smith v. State, 38 N.E.3d 218 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (extraordinary circumstances requirement for Rule 60(B)(8))
- Butler v. State, 933 N.E.2d 33 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (meritorious claim standard under Rule 60(B))