Steven Robbins v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2019 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
ON REHEARING
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Aug 16 2019, 8:43 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
APPELLANT PRO SE ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Steven Robbins Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Pendleton, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Monika Prekopa Talbot
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Steven Robbins, August 16, 2019
Appellant-Petitioner, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A04-1709-PC-2143
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Kurt M. Eisgruber,
Appellee-Respondent Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
49G01-0205-PC-140250
Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Mem. Dec. on Rehearing 49A04-1709-PC-2143 | August 16, 2019 Page 1 of 2
[1] Steven Robbins has filed a petition for rehearing in this cause. We grant the
petition for the limited purpose of correcting two statements made in our
original decision. We stated that trial counsel had “reviewed all discovery
provided by the State and conducted a considerable amount of discovery,
including taking five depositions and other witness interviews.” Robbins v. State,
No. 49A04-1709-PC-2143, at slip op. p. 6 (Ind. Ct. App. June 13, 2019).
Evidently, when trial counsel took over the case, Robbins’s first attorney had
already conducted the discovery. So, while trial counsel reviewed all of the
discovery available, she, herself, did not actually take depositions or take any
discovery.
[2] Second, we stated that “there is no evidence in the record that counsel had any
knowledge of Charrece’s existence.” Id. at 7. Apparently, Charrece’s name did
appear on one document in a voluminous record; specifically, her name was on
the police Incident History Detail report.
[3] We hereby correct those two statements that we made in error. This does not,
however, change our view of what the outcome should be. Our original result
stands and we deny the petition for rehearing in all respects other than what we
had already addressed herein.
May, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Mem. Dec. on Rehearing 49A04-1709-PC-2143 | August 16, 2019 Page 2 of 2