Witt v. State
2010 Ind. App. LEXIS 2158
Ind. Ct. App.2010Background
- Witt pleaded guilty to Murder and Robbery, receiving life without parole (LWOP) under a negotiated open plea.
- Pretrial, multiple experts evaluated Witt for mental retardation; the court found Witt not mentally retarded.
- In 1996 Witt was sentenced to LWOP following the plea; the defense later challenged the sentence as statutory improper.
- Witt did not seek direct or collateral review for over nine years, then pursued belated appeal; Indiana Supreme Court denied the belated appeal.
- In 2007 Witt filed pro se post-conviction relief; evidentiary hearings occurred in 2009 and 2010; one judge denied relief, leading to this appeal.
- The post-conviction court held Witt failed to show (a) statutory prohibition against LWOP applied, and (b) ineffective assistance of counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statutory prohibition on LWOP for mentally retarded | Witt argues LWOP violates statute for mentally retarded individuals. | State contends prior mental retardation finding or post-conviction limits preclude relief. | No error; statute not violated. |
| Effectiveness of counsel | Counsel failed to uncover judge bias and inadequately presented mental retardation claim. | Counsel reasonably provided representation; no prejudice shown. | No ineffective assistance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Collins v. State, 817 N.E.2d 230 (Ind.2004) (direct-appeal limits for guilty pleas with discretionary sentencing)
- Timberlake v. State, 753 N.E.2d 591 (Ind.2001) (post-conviction limits on super-appeal)
- Pruitt v. State, 903 N.E.2d 899 (Ind.2009) (definition of mental retardation; IQ/adaptive functioning standards)
- State v. McManus, 868 N.E.2d 778 (Ind.2007) (IQ cutoff context post-Atkins; mental retardation standard)
- Witt v. State, 867 N.E.2d 1279 (Ind.2007) (prior decision cited regarding belated appeal and plea context)
- Saylor v. State, 808 N.E.2d 646 (Ind.2004) (extraordinary remedies related to changed sentencing landscape)
- Schiro v. State, 669 N.E.2d 1357 (Ind.1996) (judicial response to changes after conviction)