Troy R. Shaw v. State of Indiana, 130 N.E.3d 91

Troy R. Shaw was convicted of murder in 2002 and sentenced to 60 years; that conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.
Shaw’s first state post-conviction petition (2007) alleging ineffective assistance was denied; the denial was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and federal district court relief was denied.
The Seventh Circuit granted habeas relief, finding appellate counsel ineffective, and ordered that Indiana grant Shaw a new direct appeal or issue a writ.
A new direct appeal was held and resolved; the Court of Appeals again affirmed Shaw’s conviction and sentence (2017).
Shaw filed a state post-conviction petition challenging appellate counsel’s performance in the second direct appeal; the trial court dismissed it as an unauthorized successive petition under Ind. P-C. R. 1(12), and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer and held that a petition challenging only issues arising from proceedings on remand after federal habeas relief is not a "second" or "successive" petition under Rule 1(12).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a post-conviction petition that challenges only the proceedings on remand following federal habeas relief counts as a "second" or "successive" petition requiring appellate authorization	Shaw: Petition raises claims that arose after his first post-conviction petition (i.e., from the new trial/appeal) and thus is not successive and may be filed without prior authorization	State: The petition is successive and must be dismissed unless authorized under Ind. P-C. R. 1(12) (relying on Azania)	Court: Such petitions are not "second" or "successive" when they address only issues that arose from the remand/new proceedings; no prior appellate authorization is required
Whether the Public Defender may represent indigent petitioners in these post-remand petitions	Shaw: Representation is appropriate as with authorized successive petitions	State: (implicit) representation for successive petitions is governed by authorization rules	Court: Public Defender may represent indigent petitioners in these circumstances

Azania v. State, 738 N.E.2d 248 (Ind. 2000) (discussed limits on filing successive post-conviction petitions without authorization)
Shaw v. Wilson, 721 F.3d 908 (7th Cir. 2013) (federal habeas decision finding appellate counsel ineffective and ordering relief)
Wilkes v. State, 984 N.E.2d 1236 (Ind. 2013) (post-conviction relief is limited to issues not known at trial or not available on direct appeal)
Overstreet v. State, 993 N.E.2d 179 (Ind. 2013) (explaining appellate screening function for successive petitions)
Ben-Yisrayl v. State, 738 N.E.2d 253 (Ind. 2000) (defining scope of post-conviction review)
Shaw v. State, 82 N.E.3d 886 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (Court of Appeals decision affirming conviction on second direct appeal)