Title: Corey Middleton v. State of Indiana
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 32S01-1704-PC-226
State: Indiana
Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court
Date: April 21, 2017

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE 
Jeffrey A. Baldwin 
 
 
 
 
 
Curtis T. Hill, Jr. 
Tyler D. Helmond 
 
 
 
 
 
Attorney General of Indiana 
Voyles, Zahn, & Paul 
 
 
 
 
 
Indianapolis, IN  
 
 
 
 
 
Jesse R. Drum 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Deputy Attorney General 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
 
 
 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
In the 
Indiana Supreme Court  
_________________________________ 
 
No. 32S01-1704-PC-226 
 
COREY MIDDLETON,   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appellant (Petitioner below), 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    v. 
 
STATE OF INDIANA,    
 
 
 
 
 
Appellee (Respondent below).  
_________________________________ 
 
Appeal from the Hendricks Superior Court, No. 32D02-1502-PC-3  
The Honorable Rhett Stuard, Judge 
_________________________________ 
 
On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 32A01-1603-PC-592 
_________________________________ 
 
April 21, 2017 
 
Per Curiam. 
 
Corey Middleton filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging several claims of 
ineffective assistance of trial counsel.  The post-conviction court denied Middleton’s petition, and 
the Court of Appeals affirmed.  Middleton v. State, 64 N.E.3d 895 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), reh’g 
denied.  In so doing, the court determined Middleton’s counsel performed deficiently as to one of 
Middleton’s claims.  Id. at 903.  But the court ultimately rejected that claim, finding Middleton 
had “not established that but for counsel’s error, the result of the proceeding would have been 
FILED
C L E R K
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
Apr 21 2017, 3:24 pm
 
 
different.”  Id. at 902.  Middleton seeks transfer, contending, among other things, that the Court of 
Appeals applied the incorrect standard in making this assessment. 
 
We agree with our colleagues’ ultimate resolution of Middleton’s claims.  We note, 
however, that to demonstrate prejudice from counsel’s deficient performance, a petitioner need 
only show “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the 
proceeding would have been different.”  Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984) 
(emphasis added).  “A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence 
in the outcome.”  Id.  See, e.g., Campbell v. State, 19 N.E.3d 271, 274 (Ind. 2014); Wilkes v. State, 
984 N.E.2d 1236, 1241 (Ind. 2013) (quoting Strickland).   
 
Accordingly, we grant transfer and summarily affirm the Court of Appeals opinion 
pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 58(A), with the exception of its misstatement of Strickland’s 
prejudice standard.    
 
All Justices concur.