Important: This article provides general information about ineffective assistance of counsel in Indiana. It is not legal advice. Every case is different. If you have questions about your situation, contact an attorney as soon as possible.

When someone you love is convicted, the questions come fast. Could the outcome have been different? Did the lawyer do everything they should have? You may keep replaying moments from the case — a witness who was never called, a motion that was never filed, advice that did not sit right. If those questions are keeping you up at night, you are not alone, and you are asking something the law takes seriously.

The Sixth Amendment guarantees more than just a lawyer. It guarantees the effective help of one. When a defense attorney's performance falls far enough below what the Constitution requires, and that failure changes the outcome, the law has a name for it: ineffective assistance of counsel. Here is how it works in Indiana, in plain terms.

What Is Ineffective Assistance of Counsel?

Ineffective assistance of counsel — often shortened to "IAC" — is a constitutional claim. It says that the lawyer who represented you (or your loved one) performed so poorly that the conviction or sentence cannot stand. It is not about a lawyer you simply did not like, or a strategy you disagreed with. It is about a failure serious enough that the trial was no longer fair.

This is a high bar, and it is meant to be. Courts assume that licensed attorneys are competent. To overcome that assumption, you have to show specific, identifiable failures — not just a bad result. A guilty verdict alone does not prove your lawyer was ineffective.

The Two-Part Strickland Test

Both federal and Indiana courts use the test from Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). The Indiana Supreme Court has applied this same standard for decades, including in cases such as Timberlake v. State. Under Strickland, you must prove two separate things:

  • Deficient performance. Your attorney's work "fell below an objective standard of reasonableness."
  • Prejudice. There is a "reasonable probability" that, but for the attorney's errors, the result would have been different.

You must prove both. A serious mistake that did not affect the outcome is not enough. Neither is a harmful outcome that did not stem from an unreasonable mistake. This two-part structure is the heart of every IAC claim.

Part 1: Proving Your Attorney's Performance Was Deficient

The first question is whether the lawyer's conduct was objectively unreasonable. Courts look at what a competent attorney would have done under the same circumstances. They give real deference to strategic choices: if a lawyer made a reasoned decision — say, not to call a witness whose testimony could have backfired — that usually is not deficient, even if hindsight suggests a different path.

What courts are looking for is conduct that no reasonable attorney would have chosen. That often means failures of preparation, investigation, or basic diligence rather than judgment calls made in the heat of trial.

Part 2: Proving You Were Prejudiced

The second question is whether the deficient performance actually mattered. You do not have to prove the outcome certainly would have changed. You have to show a "reasonable probability" of a different result — enough to undermine confidence in what happened.

In a plea case, prejudice usually means showing that, with correct advice, you would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. The U.S. Supreme Court confirmed in Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985), that the Strickland test applies to advice about plea agreements.

Common Examples of Ineffective Assistance in Indiana Cases

No two cases are alike, but certain failures come up again and again in post-conviction litigation. Examples that courts have treated as potentially deficient include:

  • Failing to investigate or interview alibi witnesses who could have supported the defense
  • Failing to file a motion to suppress evidence that was obtained unlawfully
  • Giving wrong or incomplete advice about a plea offer or its consequences
  • Missing important deadlines, including the deadline to file an appeal
  • Failing to object to improper evidence or improper argument
  • Showing up to trial without adequate preparation or knowledge of the case

Each of these only matters if it also caused prejudice. The point of identifying them is to ask the right questions about what went wrong — and whether it changed the outcome.

How IAC Claims Are Raised — Through Post-Conviction Relief

In Indiana, ineffective assistance is almost always raised through post-conviction relief under Indiana Post-Conviction Rule 1 — not on direct appeal. The reason is practical: proving IAC usually requires evidence from outside the trial record, such as testimony from the trial attorney about why they did or did not do something. A direct appeal is limited to the existing record, so there is nowhere to develop those facts.

A post-conviction case is a separate, civil proceeding. You (the petitioner) file a verified petition, the State responds, and the court may hold an evidentiary hearing where witnesses testify and documents come in. You carry the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. Because the rules limit how many petitions you can file, it is important to raise all known grounds the first time and to build the record carefully. You can read more on our post-conviction relief page, and our complete guide to Indiana post-conviction relief walks through the full process. If a direct appeal is still on the table, our article on what happens after you lose a trial explains those deadlines.

Ineffective Assistance Claims in Central Indiana

Hammond Legal represents people pursuing post-conviction relief and ineffective assistance claims across Central Indiana, including Madison County (Anderson), Marion County (Indianapolis), Hamilton County (Noblesville), Hancock County (Greenfield), Shelby County (Shelbyville), Delaware County (Muncie), and Henry County (New Castle). These cases are often filed in the same county where the original conviction occurred, and many of the people we hear from are family members researching options on behalf of someone who is incarcerated. Wherever the conviction happened, the sooner the record is reviewed, the better.

Common Questions

Can I file an ineffective assistance claim if I took a plea deal?
Yes. Ineffective assistance can occur during plea negotiations as well as at trial. In Hill v. Lockhart, the U.S. Supreme Court applied the two-part Strickland test to guilty pleas. If your attorney gave you seriously wrong advice about a plea and you would have made a different decision with correct advice, that can be the basis for a claim raised through post-conviction relief.
How long do I have to file a post-conviction petition in Indiana?
Indiana Post-Conviction Rule 1 does not set a strict filing deadline, but waiting too long can hurt you. Under the doctrine of laches, the State can argue that an unreasonable delay that prejudiced the State should bar relief. Evidence and witnesses also fade over time. The safest course is to speak with an attorney as soon as you believe your trial counsel may have failed you.
What if my attorney made a strategic decision — does that count?
Courts give attorneys wide latitude on strategy. A reasonable tactical choice — even one that did not work out — usually is not ineffective assistance. The question is not whether a different lawyer would have done something else, but whether the decision fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. This is why these claims require careful review of the full record.
What happens if the court finds my attorney was ineffective?
If a court grants post-conviction relief on an ineffective assistance claim, the remedy depends on where the failure occurred. The court may vacate the conviction and order a new trial, allow you to withdraw a guilty plea, or order a new sentencing hearing. It does not automatically mean you go free — it means the constitutional error is corrected.
Can I raise ineffective assistance if I never appealed my conviction?
Often, yes. Ineffective assistance claims usually depend on facts outside the trial record, so Indiana courts generally expect them to be raised in a post-conviction petition rather than on direct appeal. Not having filed a direct appeal does not, by itself, prevent you from pursuing post-conviction relief, though the specifics of your case matter.

Have Questions About Your Case?

If you believe a trial attorney failed you or a loved one, attorney Emilee Hammond can review the record and explain your options. She represents people in post-conviction and ineffective assistance matters across Central Indiana.