Opinion ID: 852258
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Claim of Ineffective Assistance Is Unavailable Here.

Text: Caruthers argues that his trial counsel was ineffective on several grounds. (Appellant's Br. at 5-10.) His appellate counsel making these arguments also served as trial counsel. [2] Arguing one's own ineffectiveness is not permissible under the Rules of Professional Conduct. Ind. Professional Conduct Rule 1.7(a); Etienne v. State, 716 N.E.2d 457, 463 (Ind. 1999). Etienne pointed out that to rule on the merits of such a claim on direct appeal would foreclose the defendant from ever having a fresh set of eyes consider and argue the effectiveness of his or her trial counsel. Etienne, 716 N.E.2d at 463. [3] This problem arises because an ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim is foreclosed in post-conviction proceedings if it is raised on direct appeal. Woods v. State, 701 N.E.2d 1208 (Ind.1998). As in Etienne, Caruthers' present ineffectiveness claim is little more than a rehashing of his other claims and presents no basis for an exception. Id. While Etienne explicitly acknowledged that there may come a case in which immediately reviewing trial counsel's performance is appropriate, this is not that case. Id. We therefore decline to consider these arguments.