Court Opinion

ID: 9528031
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:36:30.966926+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:26:24.715754
License: Public Domain

SHIELDS, Judge,
concurring.
In my opinion, Owens has waived any issue he raised or could have raised during the course of his previous post-conviction relief proceedings. Therefore, he has waived, and we should not address, those issues involving the trial court's alleged failure to properly advise Owens in accordance with Ind.Code § 85-4.1-1-8 (repealed). However, in my opinion, Owens did not waive, nor could he have, the issue of whether the post-conviction relief court erred in refusing to permit him to amend his petition after hearing but prior to judgment.1 Similarly, he did not waive the claim his previous post-conviction relief appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel.2 I fully concur in Judge Sullivan's opinion on these two issues.
BUCHANAN, C.J., concurs.

. The amendment issue could not have been waived during the course of previous post-conviction relief proceedings because it arose as a result of the manner in which the present proceeding was conducted.

. Owens asserts the counsel who represented him on the appeal of the denial of his first petition for post-conviction relief was ineffective. Owens raised the ineffectiveness issue in his second petition for post-conviction relief which was dismissed as facially deficient. He again raised it in the present petition. Therefore, he raised the issue at the earliest opportunity and has continued to pursue it.