Opinion ID: 2082485
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Instructions Regarding Mitigating Circumstances

Text: As a ground for post-conviction relief, appellant alleges the failure of the trial court to instruct the jury how to regard mitigating circumstances, and to list specific nonstatutory mitigating circumstances. The trial court at the second trial on these charges gave two instructions relevant to mitigation. The first set out the possible mitigators from the statute. The second stated that: You are required to consider as a mitigating factor, any aspect of the defendant's character or record, and any circumstances of the offense that the defendant proffers as a basis for a sentence less than death. In the direct appeal from these convictions this Court held that the trial court thoroughly and adequately instructed the jury, pursuant to I.C. § 35-50-2-9, how they were to weigh the evidence and determine whether to recommend the death sentence. Lowery, 478 N.E.2d at 1230. As mentioned above, we have held that issues raised and decided on direct appeal are not reviewable in a petition for post-conviction relief, and are res judicata. An issue that is raised on direct appeal and is decided adverse to appellant's position is res judicata in post-conviction proceedings. Grey v. State (1990), Ind., 553 N.E.2d 1196. Appellant initially raised the issue concerning the trial court's instructions regarding aggravating and mitigating circumstances in his second direct appeal, and this Court resolved the matter against appellant. The post-conviction claim adds another example to the list of deficiencies presented in the direct appeal. The example is not fresh. This ground was foreclosed by the direct appeal.