Indiana Supreme Court· 9/23/2005

Matheney v. State

Citations

834 N.E.2d 658
2005 Ind. LEXIS 857
2005 WL 2327048

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

holding that claims presented in previous post-conviction petitions but decided against the petitioner are barred from re-litigation by the doctrine of res judicata
holding that the petitioner’s claim alleging trial court errors was procedurally defaulted where he made “no showing that the particular errors … were unknown in earlier review proceedings”
determining that post-conviction counsel did not render ineffective assistance by deciding to present only the claims deemed most likely to prevail
denying motion for DNA testing under statute imposing reasonable probability standard when results would not be more favorable to petitioner than previous testing and evidence that petitioner committed murder was “overwhelming”
claims that have already been decided adversely are barred from re-litigation in successive post-conviction proceedings by the doctrine of res judicata
claims of ineffective assistance of counsel already decided in earlier post-conviction appeal are barred in successive post-conviction proceedings as res judicata

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Shepard, Dickson, Sullivan, Boehm, Rucker

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

13 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

18 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.