Court Opinion

ID: 9884786
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 03:11:40.150006+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:57.571242
License: Public Domain

DeBRULER, Justice,
concurring in result.
I find that I can no longer agree with the holding in Hollonquest v. State, (1982) Ind., 432 N.E.2d 37, regarding the presence of a waiver of the issue of effective assistance of counsel. There is no per se rule that such issue is waived so as to prevent it from being raised in a post-conviction proceeding commenced after a conviction is *896affirmed on direct appeal. Langley v. State, (1971) 256 Ind. 199, 267 N.E.2d 538, upon which Hollonguest was based provides that whether such waiver has oc curred is a question which must be litigated in the trial court by the State in defense of the petition for post-conviction relief. If that defense has not been raised, the trial court and the appeal court should go directly to the merits of the post-conviction claim of ineffective counsel, in spite of the fact that the claim was not made in a first and direct appeal. Here there is no argument made by the State that such defense was made at the trial level, and therefore I cannot concur in the majority opinion declaration that a waiver of the issue occurred. I do agree however with the resolution of the issue on its merits against appellant.