Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
The Indiana Supreme Court denied a petition for post-conviction relief for a man convicted and sentenced to death for the murders of his wife and her two children, Chief Justice Loretta Rush wrote in an order issued Tuesday.
Petitioner Kevin Charles Isom’s request to litigate 14 claims in a successive petition was denied because his claims were either barred by res judicata or procedurally defaulted.
In August 2007, Isom was arrested for the murders of his wife Cassandra, his 13-year-old stepdaughter Ci’Andria Cole and his 16-year-old stepson Michael Moore in Gary.
At his trial in 2013, the jury found Isom guilty in all three murders and recommended the death penalty for each murder conviction.
The supreme court affirmed his convictions and death sentence, but remanded for a new sentencing order after finding the trial court erred in ordering that the sentences be served consecutively.
In January 2016, Isom filed his first post-conviction relief petition, but it was denied.
His second request was denied in 2021.
Upon denying the most recent petition, the high court stated that eight of Isom’s 14 claims were barred by procedural default. Indiana’s Post-Conviction Rule 1(8) says, “All grounds for relief available to a petitioner under this rule must be raised in his original petition.” P-C.R. 1(8).
According to the court, the claims could’ve been, but were not, raised in earlier proceedings, and Isom admitted he raised none of them on direct appeal or in his previous post-conviction relief proceedings.
Under Matheney v. State, 834 N.E.2d 658, 662 (Ind. 2005), unraised claims that were knowingly waived cannot be the basis for a subsequent petition and are procedurally defaulted.
The court concluded the eight claims were known or knowable to Isom when those past proceedings occurred.
Isom’s six other claims were barred by res judicata, Rush wrote. Res judicata doctrine under Post-Conviction Rule 1(8) bars relitigating post-conviction claims that were already decided.
Record shows Isom had raised the six claims before and the supreme court had already decided on them.
“Isom cannot resurrect these old claims by simply recharacterizing them,” Rush wrote.
The case is Kevin Charles Isom v. State of Indiana, 23S-SD-52.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.