Appellate panel hears challenge to denial of Harry Coleman’s post-conviction petition over counsel’s mental‑health investigation

An appellate panel heard argument in a post‑conviction petition filed on behalf of Harry Coleman seeking reversal of a trial court’s denial and remand for a new trial, with counsel for Coleman saying trial counsel failed to investigate possible mental‑health evidence and the state urging the court to affirm the denial.

Joseph McCluskey, attorney for petitioner Harry Coleman, told the panel, “I’ve been working on this case for over 10 years,” and said Coleman is “actually scheduled for release later this year,” framing the length and stakes of the litigation. McCluskey argued trial counsel “failed to investigate” and “failed to conduct reasonable diligence” regarding the petitioner’s mental health, and he cited case law he identified as State v. Burns to say “[f]ailure to investigate is deficient performance on its face.”

The gist of McCluskey’s claim is that trial counsel encountered statements and behavior that should have prompted further psychiatric evaluation — notably that Coleman had reported being diagnosed with a mood disorder, that “I don’t like taking my…