Title: Tyre Bradbury
v.
State of Indiana

State: indiana

Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court

Document:

In the 
Indiana Supreme Court 
Tyre Bradbury, 
Appellant, 
v.  
State of Indiana, 
Appellee. 
Supreme Court Case No. 
21S-PC-441  
Court of Appeals Case No. 
20A-PC-620 
Trial Court Case No. 
71D08-1801-PC-2 
 
Order on Rehearing 
This matter comes before the Court on the petition for rehearing that Tyre Bradbury 
(“Bradbury”) filed on November 1, 2021, and the parties’ briefing on the petition.  
Being duly advised, the Court grants Bradbury’s petition in part and modifies its original 
majority opinion, issued October 1, 2021, as follows: 
To so hold would open the door to every unfavorable verdict being challenged 
and/or overturned on ineffective of assistance of counsel 
grounds. Accordingly, 
because we find that Bradbury’s counsel’s performance was not deficient, we decline 
to address the prejudice prong under Strickland. See Williams v. State, 706 N.E.2d 149, 
154 (Ind. 1999) (“To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, one must 
show both deficient performance and resulting prejudice”) (emphasis added); French 
v. State, 778 N.E.2d 816, 824 (Ind. 2002) (“Failure to satisfy either prong will cause 
the claim to fail.”). 
We also find no prejudice here. Tendering the lesser included instruction would 
have given the jury another option to convict Bradbury. 
As the State correctly notes, 
Bradbury was unlikely to be acquitted of a lesser charge in light of the evidence that 
the shooting was not just reckless, but intentional, as well as Bradbury’s own repeated 
admissions of responsibility. As such, he was not prejudiced by counsel not seeking a 
lesser included instruction. 
Slip op. at 7. 
Further, Justice Goff modifies his separate opinion as follows: 
In concluding arguing that Bradbury wasn’t not prejudiced by counsel’s failure 
to request a lesser-included instruction, the Court State cites “Bradbury’s own 
repeated admissions of involvement in the shooting responsibility” and points to 
“evidence that “the shooting was not just merely reckless”, but intentional.” 
Appellee’s Br. at 19–20.Ante, at 7. 
Dissent at 6. 
FILED
C L E R K
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
Feb 07 2022, 3:22 pm
2 
Still, the Court State insists that, given Bradbury’s “repeated admissions of 
responsibility, a jury would have had little difficulty finding him guilty of a lesser 
offense” and he “still may have received a significant sentence because he was also 
facing a criminal gang enhancement.” Appellee’s Br. at 16 (record citations omitted). 
“[t]endering the lesser included instruction would have given the jury another option 
to convict Bradbury.” Ante, at 7. But it’s no answer to insist suggest “that a 
defendant may be better off without such an[a lesser-included] instruction.” Keeble v. 
United States, 412 U.S. 205, 212 (1973). . . . But if given the option to convict on a 
lesser-included offense with a substantially reduced sentence (even with a criminal-
gang enhancement), the jury may well have chosen that option.  
The Court’s State’s suggestion also conflicts with the “basic notion that 
juveniles are different from adults when it comes to sentencing and are generally less 
deserving of the harshest punishments.” State v. Stidham, 157 N.E.3d 1185, 1188 
(Ind. 2020). 
Id. at 7. 
Additionally, it has come to the Court’s attention that the original majority opinion 
contains typographical errors on page 5 of the slip opinion. Specifically, the underlined 
words below were inadvertently omitted from the original opinion: 
. . . Further, the standard of review requires that we affirm unless “there  is no way 
within the law that the court below could have reached the decision it did.” Stevens, 
770 N.E.2d at 745. 
Further, as for prejudice, Bradbury “must show a reasonable probability that, 
but for counsel's errors, the proceedings below would have resulted in a different 
outcome.” Wilson, 157 N.E.3d at 1177. “A reasonable probability is a probability 
sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 
U.S. 668, 694 (1984). 
Slip op. at 5. 
Contemporaneous with the entry of this Order, the Court is filing its Opinion on 
Rehearing reflecting these changes.  
Done at Indianapolis, Indiana, on  ___________ 
. 
FOR THE COURT 
Loretta H. Rush 
Chief Justice of Indiana 
2/7/2022
3 
All Justices concur, except Rush, C.J. and Goff, J., who vote to grant rehearing in full for the 
reasons expressed in the dissent to the opinion on rehearing.