The issue in the case is whether someone who is competent to stand trial is therefore competent to represent themselves. The Indiana Supreme Court said, "yes." Does anyone think that cert. was granted to affirm?
The decision of the Indiana Supreme Court from last May in Edwards v. State is here (written by Justice Boehm). The Court of Appeals decision (written by now-Chief Judge Baker), which the Indiana Supreme Court vacated is here. But this is a case in which the ISC granted transfer to make the holding its own. It did not disagree with Judge Baker.
In the category of "Be Careful What You Wish For," Justice Boehm wrote in Edwards:
The State responds that more recent authority casts doubt on the continued vitality of the authorities on which Edwards relies. We agree that this contention has some force, but we conclude that we are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent and that the State must address its contention to that Court.Guess the Indiana AG's Appeals Division took him up on the dare.
The Indiana Supreme Court's assertion that is bound by SCOTUS precedent should be taken with a grain of salt. On at least two occasions, it has explicitly said that is not bound by Jackson v. Virginia. A federal district court has said that those decisions are "unfortunate." Well, yes.
I'll have to look into whether this is a first: a SCOTUS cert. grant in a criminal case on a petition by the State.