Legal Opinion

Van Meter v. State

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided June 1, 1995No. 79S02-9506-CR-620PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SHEPARD, Chief Justice.

This case presents the question whether a criminal defendant may collaterally attack his convictions through a Trial Rule 60(B) motion, rather than employing the established procedures for post-conviction relief. We hold that he may not.

Appellant Michael Paul Van Meter was convicted of burglary and attempted theft and was found to be a habitual offender. The trial court sentenced him to thirty-six years in prison, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. VanMeter v. State (1993), Ind.App., 625 N.E.2d 509. Van Meter then filed a pro se motion for relief from judgment pursuant…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Lowery v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1994
  2. Averhart v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1993
  3. Cornelius v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 1991
  4. Radford v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 1992

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Roche v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1997
  2. Corcoran v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 2006
  3. Jamil Michael Pirant v. State of IndianaIndiana Court of Appeals · 2019
  4. Anthony Warren v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)Indiana Court of Appeals · 2017
  5. Christopher T. Tandy v. State of IndianaIndiana Court of Appeals · 2025

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API