Generally, post-conviction relief allows a criminal defendant to directly challenge the legality of some aspect of their criminal trial, the assessment of their convictions, or the sentence they have received.

When the final deadline day arrived, attorneys instead filed a motion asking the court to assess Corcoran’s competency based on his history of mental illness, a recent mental health degree, his Department of Corrections records and observations made by his legal counsel.

Attorneys simultaneously filed a petition for post-conviction relief that lacked Corcoran’s signature.

Shortly thereafter, the court denied the petition because it was not signed or verified by Corcoran by the Indiana Supreme Court’s deadline.

A post-conviction court held a hearing in October 2003 to determine whether Corcoran was incompetent to waive his appeals. Corcoran’s attorney presented three experts, including a board-certified forensic psychiatrist, a clinical psychologist and a neuropsychologist — all of whom testified that Corcoran was incompetent to waive his appeals, Karozos said. The judge also questioned Corcoran during the proceedings.

The court ultimately found that Corcoran was competent to avoid conviction based on his testimony. Even so, Karozos noted that the post-conviction court still recognized that Corcoran “is mentally ill.”

Another appeal followed in 2004, but a year later the Supreme Court upheld the earlier decision that Corcoran had jurisdiction, and therefore his incomplete request for relief would not stand.

But in February 2005, Corcoran filed a post-conviction petition with the Indiana Supreme Court with his signature. However, the Supreme Court rejected the petition as untimely.

Corcoran’s lawyers are now leaning on an Indiana trial rule – Rule 60(B) — That would allow him to reinstate a petition for post-conviction relief after the dismissals.

That rule permits a trial court to relieve a defendant from a judgment for “any reason justifying relief from the execution of the judgment” not otherwise specifically mentioned in the rule.

To win, Corcoran and his legal team must show that:

1. he brought his claim within a reasonable time having regard to the circumstances of the case
2. extraordinary or exceptional circumstances justify this relief; and
3. he has asserted a meritorious claim or defense.

Looking at other cases

Karozos argued in the latest filing that Corcoran will bring its claim to court within a reasonable time “in light of the circumstances.”

“The legal landscape in Indiana has changed since 2003 when Corcoran’s unsigned petition was denied, and his signed petition was denied,” the attorney said.

For example, she cited a 2021 ruling by the Indiana Supreme Court that allowed a defendant facing execution to proceed with a post-conviction petition even though he refused to verify his petition by the deadline.

In that case, Isom against the statepublic defenders filed a petition for post-conviction relief on behalf of the defendant, Kevin Isom, without his signature. Isom, of Gary, was previously convicted and sentenced to death for the murders of his wife and her two children.

With Indiana’s next execution just 11 weeks away, the clemency request is the next step

Admitting the omission, the post-conviction court issued an order granting Isom additional time to file the missing verification page. Isom still refused to sign the petition, concluding that his attorneys “were not in a position to represent him,” according to court documents.

Isom’s refusal to sign meant he would lose his post-conviction challenge.

Nevertheless, after hearing oral arguments, the Indiana Supreme Court Justice ordered the trial court to grant Isom’s petition anyway. The court eventually upheld Isom’s sentence, and he remains one of eight men on Indiana’s death row.

“Corcoran should be treated the same as Isom given the change in how the Indiana Supreme Court has dealt with capital defendants who do not comply after conviction for the time prescribed by the court’s order,” Karozos said, stressing that Corcoran has brought his motion “within a reasonable amount of time, given the 2021 opinion in Isom that changed the legal landscape.”

Corcoran’s lawyers also pointed to a move by the Marion County prosecutor in January 2024 to withdraw a request for the death penalty for a defendant, Elliahs Dorsey, who killed Indianapolis police officer Breann Leath.

“Equally important, the fact that a regional consensus has emerged against executing the severely mentally ill has occurred in recent years,” Karozos continued. “Every other contiguous death penalty state in this area of ​​the Midwest has banned the death penalty for the seriously mentally ill.”

Corcoran Attorneys repeatedly insisted he is “severely mentally ill” and has been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, which they argued would further disqualify the inmate from the death penalty.

Larry Komp, lead federal attorney for Corcoran’s legal team, previously told the Indiana Capital Chronicle that a similar argument would be made in a separate motion for mercy. A decision regarding the last ground will be left to the Governor of Indiana.