Opinion ID: 853928
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Petitioner's Burdens in Post-Conviction Proceedings

Text: Post-conviction procedures do not afford convicts the opportunity for a super-appeal. Bailey v. State, 472 N.E.2d 1260, 1263 (Ind.1985) (citing Langley v. State, 256 Ind. 199, 210, 267 N.E.2d 538, 544 (1971)). Rather, they create a narrow remedy for subsequent collateral challenges to convictions. Weatherford v. State, 619 N.E.2d 915, 916-17 (Ind.1993). Petitioners must establish their grounds for relief by a preponderance of the evidence. Ind.Post-Conviction Rule 1, § 5. A petitioner appealing the denial of post-conviction relief, moreover, labors under a heavier burden: On appeal [from the denial of post-conviction relief], petitioner stands in the position of one appealing from a negative judgment. In such cases, it is only where the evidence is without conflict and leads to but one conclusion, and the trial court has reached the opposite conclusion, that the decision will be disturbed as being contrary to law. Fleenor v. State, 622 N.E.2d 140, 142 (Ind. 1993), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 999, 115 S.Ct. 507, 130 L.Ed.2d 415 (1994). Such a petitioner must show that the evidence, taken as a whole, leads unerringly and unmistakenly to a conclusion opposite to that reached by the trial court. Weatherford, 619 N.E.2d at 917; see Lowe v. State, 455 N.E.2d 1126 (Ind. 1983). In the present case, the post-conviction court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Indiana Post-Conviction Rule 1, § 6. When the post-conviction court enters such findings, the reviewing court will affirm if the court's findings are sufficient to support the judgment. Lile v. State, 671 N.E.2d 1190, 1192 (Ind.Ct. App.1996); Neville v. State, 663 N.E.2d 169, 172 (Ind.Ct.App.1996). A post-conviction court's findings and judgment will be reversed only if clearly erroneous; to determine whether the findings or judgment are clearly erroneous, we consider only the evidence favorable to the judgment and all reasonable inferences flowing therefrom.... Douglas v. State, 634 N.E.2d 811, 815 (Ind. Ct.App.1994). In short, the question before us is only whether there is no way the court could have reached its decision. Spranger v. State, 650 N.E.2d 1117, 1120 (Ind.1995).