Steven Tuck v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
79A02-1511-PC-2032
| Ind. Ct. App. | Feb 28, 2017Background
- Steven Tuck was convicted in 1998 of multiple drug- and related-offenses and sentenced to an aggregate 78-year term; convictions were affirmed on direct appeal in 1999.
- Tuck filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) in July 2000; the State Public Defender entered an appearance in October 2000 but withdrew in January 2004 after filing a notice of inability to investigate.
- After the Public Defender withdrew, Tuck took little or no action for long stretches: ~3.5 years of inactivity (2004–2007), then intermittent activity and status hearings (2008–2009), then over four years of no action (Dec. 2009–Mar. 2014).
- The State moved to dismiss Tuck’s PCR in October 2014 under Trial Rule 41(E) and asserted laches based on the long delay in prosecuting the petition; the court allowed Tuck time to amend but he filed late and inconsistently.
- At a February 2015 hearing the State presented testimony showing diminished ability to re-prosecute (missing/destroyed evidence, unavailable detectives, lost recorded statement); Tuck presented no witnesses and argued delay was not attributable to him or was acquiesced to by the State.
- The post-conviction court found Tuck unreasonably delayed prosecuting his PCR and that the State was prejudiced, granted dismissal on laches grounds, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether laches can bar a PCR based on delay in prosecuting (not just filing) | State: Laches applies to unreasonable delay in prosecuting a PCR and requires proving prejudice to re-prosecution | Tuck: Laches applies only to delay in filing; any delay is attributable to counsel or was acquiesced to by State | Court: Laches may apply to delay in prosecuting a PCR; State proved unreasonable delay and prejudice; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Armstrong v. State, 747 N.E.2d 1119 (Ind. 2001) (standard of review and laches elements in PCR context)
- Thompson v. State, 31 N.E.3d 1002 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (laches may be based on delay in prosecuting a post-conviction petition)
- Douglas v. State, 634 N.E.2d 811 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (delay caused by Public Defender generally not charged to petitioner for laches)
- Horton v. State, 510 N.E.2d 648 (Ind. 1987) (petitioner not penalized for delay after contacting Public Defender)