Post-Conviction Relief Attorney in Indiana

What Post-Conviction Relief Is — and What It Is Not

Post-conviction relief (PCR) is one of the most misunderstood areas of criminal law. Clients and families often come to Hammond Legal believing PCR is a "second trial" or a way to re-litigate everything that happened in the original case. It is neither of those things. Understanding what PCR can and cannot accomplish is the essential starting point of any honest evaluation.

PCR is a civil proceeding — separate from the underlying criminal case — governed by Indiana Post-Conviction Rule 1. It is not a retrial. No jury is involved. It is not a direct appeal. Evidence that was properly admitted at trial is not re-evaluated simply because the defendant disagrees with the verdict. Instead, PCR exists to address a specific, limited category of errors: constitutional violations and other legal defects that were not, and could not have been, raised during the original trial or on direct appeal. That category is narrow but real, and for some clients it represents a genuine pathway to relief.

What PCR Is Not

It is equally important to understand what PCR cannot accomplish. PCR cannot be used to raise issues that were available and litigated — or that could have been raised — on direct appeal. Issues that were waived or forfeited during the trial proceeding are generally not available in PCR. PCR is not an opportunity to present a new theory of innocence based on the same evidence that existed at trial. And PCR is not available to challenge a conviction simply because new legal developments have changed how courts interpret a statute — unless those changes apply retroactively.

Grounds for Post-Conviction Relief in Indiana

Under Indiana Post-Conviction Rule 1, Section 1(a), a convicted person may petition for PCR on the following grounds:

• The conviction or sentence was in violation of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution or laws of the State of Indiana
• The court did not have jurisdiction over the person or the subject matter
• The sentence imposed exceeds the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise not in accordance with the sentence authorized by law
• The conviction or sentence is subject to collateral attack upon any ground of alleged error theretofore available under any common law, statutory, or other writ, motion, petition, proceeding, or remedy

In practice, the most commonly litigated PCR grounds are ineffective assistance of trial counsel (or appellate counsel), newly discovered evidence, and unauthorized sentences.

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to effective assistance of counsel. When trial counsel provides constitutionally deficient representation that prejudices the outcome of the case, that failure can be grounds for PCR. Courts evaluate ineffective assistance claims under the two-part Strickland v. Washington standard:

• Deficient Performance: Counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness — meaning counsel made errors that a reasonably competent attorney would not have made under the circumstances.
• Prejudice: There is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.

Both prongs must be satisfied. Courts apply a strong presumption that counsel's decisions were the product of reasonable professional judgment, which makes these claims genuinely difficult to sustain. Common bases include failure to investigate, failure to interview or call available witnesses, failure to file critical pretrial motions, deficient advice regarding a plea agreement, and failure to object to inadmissible evidence. Documenting and establishing these claims requires careful review of the entire trial record as well as investigation beyond the record.

Newly Discovered Evidence

A claim of newly discovered evidence requires showing that the evidence was not available at the time of trial and could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence, that it is material rather than merely cumulative, that it would probably produce a different result if presented to a jury, and that the failure to discover it was not due to lack of diligence by the defense. Indiana courts have interpreted this standard strictly. Newly discovered evidence claims are viable, but they require substantial development and documentation before filing.

Unauthorized Sentences

An unauthorized sentence — one that exceeds what the law permits, or that was imposed in a manner not authorized by statute — can be challenged through PCR. This ground is distinct from mere disagreement with the length of the sentence; it applies where the sentence itself is legally defective. For example, if a court imposed consecutive sentences in a manner that exceeded statutory limits, or applied a sentencing enhancement that did not apply to the facts of the case, that is a cognizable PCR claim.

Sentence Modification — IC 35-38-1-17

Separate from PCR, Indiana's sentence modification statute (IC 35-38-1-17) allows a trial court to reduce a convicted person's sentence after they have served at least 365 days. This mechanism is distinct from PCR — it does not challenge the validity of the conviction or sentence, but rather asks the sentencing court to exercise its discretion to reduce the term. Eligibility and procedure for sentence modification depend on the specific language of the original plea agreement and sentencing order. This option is worth evaluating alongside any PCR analysis.

The PCR Process

PCR begins with filing a verified petition in the trial court that entered the original conviction — not in the Court of Appeals. The petition must specify all grounds for relief. The State has the opportunity to respond, either by filing a response or by moving for summary disposition. If the court concludes the pleadings and record establish that no genuine issue of material fact exists and the petitioner is not entitled to relief as a matter of law, it may summarily deny the petition without a hearing. If material issues of fact exist, an evidentiary hearing is set.

At the evidentiary hearing, the petitioner bears the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. Both sides may present witnesses — including, frequently, the petitioner's former trial counsel, who may be called to testify about their strategic decisions during the original proceeding. The court issues findings of fact and conclusions of law following the hearing. If the petition is denied, the denial may be appealed to the Indiana Court of Appeals.

PCR Is Narrow — But It Is Real

Every case warranting a PCR evaluation is different. The analysis requires a thorough review of the original trial record, sentencing record, and any direct appeal record; identification of potential grounds; an honest assessment of whether those grounds can be established by the required evidence; and realistic expectations about what relief the court could provide. Hammond Legal brings careful, thorough analysis to each PCR matter — and will give you an honest assessment of what the record supports.

Frequently Asked Questions