Opinion ID: 2119249
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Request for additional investigation.

Text: Williams has filed a motion, ex parte and under seal, requesting that we authorize funds for him to hire investigators and experts. Among other things, Williams desires to locate witnesses and gather evidence of his own mental capacity. See Ex Parte Request For The Court's Assistance To Complete Investigation For Post-Conviction Proceedings By A Person Under A Sentence Of Death filed March 29, 2004, and Notice To The Court filed April 2, 2004. Indiana law provides legal representation and investigation funds to indigent defendants for trial and to indigent prisoners for prosecution of a first post-conviction proceeding. Counsel correctly notes, however, that no provision is made for funding successive post-conviction proceedings until the prisoner has met the requirement of demonstrating a reasonable possibility of entitlement to relief. Because Williams has not made the required showing, the ex parte request for funds is DENIED. Indiana's post-conviction rules and the framework for analyzing the claims made in this rehearing proceeding. As noted above, Williams requests relief based on a new provision in Indiana's death penalty statute. The statute states: A person who has been sentenced to death and who has completed state post-conviction review proceedings may file a written petition with the supreme court seeking to present new evidence challenging the person's guilt or the appropriateness of the death sentence if the person serves notice on the attorney general. The supreme court shall determine, with or without a hearing, whether the person has presented previously undiscovered evidence that undermines confidence in the conviction or the death sentence. If necessary, the supreme court may remand the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing to consider the new evidence and its effect on the person's conviction and death sentence. The supreme court may not make a determination in the person's favor nor make a decision to remand the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing without first providing the attorney general with an opportunity to be heard on the matter.