« Ind. Courts - Lawsuit filed for certain House Republican caucus emails | Main | Ind. Decisions - 7th Circuit decided two Indiana cases yesterday »

Wednesday, April 15, 2015

Ind. Courts - In response to petition for SCOTUS to reverse Indiana COA decision, the State cites many NFPs as support [Updated]

The Court of Appeals decided Juan Manzano v. State of Indiana on July 15, 2014. Our Supreme Court denied transfer on Oct. 2, 2014.

On April 10, 2015, SCOTUSblog named the petition for cert now pending its "Petition of the Day," writing:

Manzano v. Indiana (14-631)

Issue: Whether, when a criminal defendant seeks to vacate a guilty plea on the ground that defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance, in order to establish prejudice the defendant must show that but for counsel’s errors he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial (as this Court, all twelve federal circuits, and virtually all the states hold), or whether the defendant must also show that had he gone to trial he would have been acquitted (as the Indiana Supreme Court persists in holding).

You can access the petition for certiorari and the State of Indiana's response on the SCOTUSblog case page.

That is all very interesting by itself. But in addition, there is another angle. A reader has sent a note:

Apropos of your post about Chief Judge Vaidik and NFP's, have a look at the Indiana Solicitor General's brief in opposition to cert. in Manzano v. Indiana, Docket No. 14-631. Specifically, have a look at pages 8-9. I count citations to 9 NFPs. Not to be cited before any court, eh?
So the ILB looked and sure enough, on pp. 8-9 of the brief (22-23 in PDF numbering) many unpublished (NFP) Indiana Court of Appeals opinions are cited to the SCOTUS in support of the Court of Appeal's decision in Manzano.

[Updated at 2:27 PM] The ILB has received this note from an Indianapolis attorney:

Just a quite note regarding this post on the ILB, noting that the SG was citing NFP opinions in its SCOTUS brief. On review, it appears the SG is simply responding to arguments made in the Petitioner's brief, where the Petitioner appears to cite all of those cases listed on pages 8 and 9 of the SG's brief.

The SG even refers to them as "plea-consequences cases that Manzano cites." Obviously, I think it must be fair for the SG to respond to arguments made by a Petitioner in his cert. petition, and not something that should garner criticism.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on April 15, 2015 12:04 PM
Posted to Indiana Courts