Opinion ID: 853498
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Claim of Trial Counsel Ineffectiveness

Text: In Woods, we held that a defendant may raise a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel for the first time in a post-conviction proceeding, but we emphasized that once the defendant chooses to raise his claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel (either on direct appeal or post-conviction), he must raise all issues relating to that claim, whether record-based or otherwise. 701 N.E.2d at 1220. A defendant who chooses to raise on direct appeal a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel is foreclosed from relitigating that claim. Id. ([I]neffective assistance of trial counsel is not available in post-conviction if the direct appeal raises any claim of deprivation of Sixth Amendment right to counsel.). See also Bieghler v. State, 690 N.E.2d 188, 200-01 (Ind.1997) (Some of the [defendant's arguments on post-conviction appeal] are new arguments about aspects of trial counsel's performance we considered on direct appeal; others focus on aspects not mentioned earlier. In either case, the earlier ruling that trial counsel was not ineffective is res judicata. ); Sawyer v. State, 679 N.E.2d 1328, 1329 (Ind.1997) ([The defendant], having once litigated his Sixth Amendment claim concerning ineffective assistance of counsel, is not entitled to litigate it again, by alleging different grounds.); Morris v. State, 466 N.E.2d 13, 14 (Ind.1984) (Notwithstanding the fact that petitioner gave several additional examples of his counsel's alleged ineffectiveness during the post-conviction hearing, a consideration of the ineffectiveness issue would constitute review of an issue already decided on direct appeal.). In his direct appeal, the defendant raised, and this Court considered and rejected, a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Davis, 598 N.E.2d at 1051-52. Res judicata thus barred him from relitigating this issue in post-conviction proceedings. The post-conviction court erred as a matter of law in considering the merits of the defendant's claim directly challenging trial counsel's effectiveness.