Court Opinion

ID: 9520673
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:46:44.123711+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:46:36.662431
License: Public Domain

*858BAKER, Chief Judge,
concurring.
I fully concur with the majority opinion. I write separately to express my surprise that the State did not raise the affirmative defense of laches below and, of course, also fails to raise it on appeal. The equitable doctrine of laches operates to bar consideration of the merits of a claim or right of a person who has neglected for an unreasonable time, under cireumstances permitting due diligence, to do what in law should have been done. Sweeney v. State, 886 N.E.2d 1, 6 (Ind.Ct.App.2008), trans. de-mied. For laches to apply, the State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the petitioner unreasonably delayed in seeking relief and that the State is prejudiced by the delay. Id. In post-conviction proceedings, prejudice exists when the unreasonable delay operates to materially diminish a reasonable likelihood of successful reprosecution. Id.
Here, the underlying crime occurred and Mast pleaded guilty in 1989. Mast filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief in 1990 and withdrew it in 1994. He filed a second pro se petition for post-conviction relief in 2001. This petition was later amended by counsel in 2006. In 2008-nearly twenty years after the crime occurred-a hearing was held on Mast's petition. I believe that if the State had raised this argument, it would have prevailed. Inasmuch as it declined to do so, however, I fully concur with the majority.