William Clyde Gibson, III v. State of Indiana

Summary

The court affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief in both capital cases. It held that Gibson failed to establish deficient performance or prejudice based on alleged delays in representation and investigation, mitigation decisions, failure to challenge evidence, or plea advice, and that his guilty plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. The court also held that Gibson's public-defender conflict claim was governed by the ordinary prejudice requirement rather than a presumption of prejudice. No separate opinions were filed.