« Ind. Decisions - Two today from the Court of Appeals; one from Tax Court | Main | Ind. Law - Governor's message on SEA 512, re annexation »

Friday, April 29, 2005

Ind. Decisions - One today from the Supreme Court

Michael Allen Lambert v. State of Indiana (4/28/05 IndSCt)
[PUBLISHED ORDER CONCERNING SUCCESSIVE PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF IN CAPITAL CASE]

Introduction. Petitioner Michael Allen Lambert was convicted of murder and sentenced to death for killing a law enforcement officer acting in the course of duty. Lambert now asks leave to litigate in state court another collateral claim relating to the death sentence. Because we conclude that Lambert has not shown a reasonable possibility that he is entitled to relief, we deny his request. * * *

Conclusion. Lambert has not met his burden of establishing a reasonable possibility that he is entitled to post-conviction relief. Accordingly, we decline to authorize the filing of a successive petition for post-conviction relief. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this order to counsel of record and to West Publishing for publication in the bound volumes of this Court’s decisions.

DONE AT INDIANAPOLIS INDIANA, this 28th day of April, 2005.

/s/ Randall T. Shepard
Chief Justice of Indiana

Shepard, C.J., and Dickson and Sullivan, JJ., concur.
Boehm, J., dissents with opinion.

Rucker, J., dissents with opinion.

[Update 4/30/05] An AP story posted by WTHR 13 reports:
The Indiana Supreme Court turned down a death row inmate's request for a new appeal. The court voted three-to-two yesterday to let Michael Allen Lambert's death sentence stand.

Lambert was convicted of the 1990 murder of Muncie police officer Gregg Winters. He lost on a previous series of appeals. Now, he wants to file a new appeal. He says jurors might not have recommended a death sentence if a judge hadn't improperly allowed the victim's wife and others to give victim-impact statements during the penalty phase.

The high court said the testimony shouldn't have been allowed, but three of the justices said it wouldn't have made any difference.

Two of the justices dissented, however. They say there's no way to tell what the jury would have done, and Lambert should be allowed to make his argument in court.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on April 29, 2005 02:04 PM
Posted to Ind. Sup.Ct. Decisions