Steven Robbins v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
MEMORANDUM DECISION ON REHEARING Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. FILED Aug 16 2019, 8:43 am CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court APPELLANT PRO SE ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Steven Robbins Pendleton, Indiana Curtis T. Hill, Jr. 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. State of Indiana, Appellee-Respondent Appeal from the Marion Superior Court The Honorable Kurt M. Eisgruber, 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
