Opinion ID: 2025015
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Framework for analyzing the claims

Text: As noted above, Williams has attempted to fit all his claims within the rubric of a new statute which states as follows: 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 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 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. Ind.Code § 35-50-2-9(k) (2003). The statute went into effect just weeks ago, on July 1, 2003. By its own terms, the statute limits our consideration to claims involving previously undiscovered evidence that have been presented to us. Williams has made claims here that do not fall into that category. However, we have court rules that, like the statute, also can provide an avenue for relief for a person who has been sentenced to death and who has completed state post-conviction relief proceedings. See generally Indiana Post-Conviction Rules. Our rules permit a convicted person who has already completed post-conviction proceedings to request a second or additional successive opportunity for post-conviction relief. See Ind. P-C. R. 1 § 12(a). The categories of cases in which relief may be sought under these rules are broader than those allowed under the statute cited by Williams. Compare P-C. R. 1 § 1(a) with Ind.Code § 35-50-2-9(k) (2003). Under our successive post-conviction rules, the court will authorize the filing of a successive petition seeking post-conviction relief if the petitioner establishes a reasonable possibility that the petitioner is entitled to post-conviction relief. P-C. R. 1 § 12(b). As noted above in the history of this litigation, Williams has already availed himself of the successive post-conviction rule once. The question of whether Indiana Code § 35-50-2-9(k) as amended provides a different analytical form of review for the narrow category of cases to which it applies or whether it otherwise adds anything new to the capital jurisprudence of Indiana are not questions we need resolve now. As of the time Williams filed his petition, we had not spoken on these issues and we have therefore analyzed each claim using the language of the new statute insofar as the claim involves new and previously undiscovered evidence. In order to provide Williams with review on the merits of all the claims he has made, we have applied the language of our successive post-conviction rule to the extent his claims do not involve previously undiscovered evidence.