Nuckles v. State

I do not believe that Nuckles was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel, and I therefore dissent from Section 4b of the majority’s opinion.

The majority concludes that Nuckles was denied the effective assistance of counsel because his appellate attorney failed to challenge the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences. The majority indicates that Nuckles’ appellate attorney could have made *217such a challenge by arguing from Kendrick v. State, 529 N.E.2d 1811 (Ind.1988).

In Kendrick, the defendant pled guilty to a charge which was pending against him in Division One of the…