ROBBINS v. STATE (2019)

MEMORANDUM DECISION ON REHEARING

[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.

Denied.

Baker, Judge.

May, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.