Opinion ID: 853771
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Death Penalty Protocol

Text: Benefiel argues that the Department of Correction violated due process by failing to provide a sufficiently detailed written description of how Benefiel will be put to death. (Petitioner-Appellant's Br. at 101.) This claim was not raised until after the post-conviction proceedings, by a motion to correct error. [7] A motion to correct error is designed to provide post-judgment relief in a few very limited situations. See Ind.Trial Rule 59(A). Here, Benefiel must prove that he has [n]ewly discovered material evidence ... which, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered and produced at trial. Id. We agree with Judge Nardi, the post-conviction judge, that the evidence underlying this claim was available at the time of Benefiel's post-conviction hearing. (P-C.R. at 726.) While it is true that, prior to the motion to correct error, there had not been an execution by lethal injection in Indiana, ( id. ), Benefiel did not and does not challenge the methods employed in the first (and subsequent) lethal injection proceedings, ( see P-C.R. at 702, 1859). Rather, he challenges the adequacy of the Department's existing ten-page operational directive on the execution of death sentences. There is no apparent reason for tardy presentation of this claim, such as it is. [8] All grounds for relief available to a petitioner under [Post-Conviction Rule 1] must be raised in his original petition. P-C.R. 1(8). Because Benefiel did not exercise reasonable diligence to discover and present this issue in his post-conviction petition, it is now waived.