ILNews

COA: OK counsel didn't raise Blakely claim

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
A defendant's appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise a Blakely claim on appeal because raising the issue was outside his counsel's objective prevailing professional norms at the time, ruled a majority of an Indiana Court of Appeals panel today. However, the dissenting judge cited numerous examples of other counsel amending appeals with a Blakely claim during the same time period.

In Steven Kendall v. State of Indiana, No. 49A05-0707-PC-391, Kendall appealed the denial of his post-conviction relief petition by the post-conviction court. Kendall believed he received ineffective assistance from his appellate counsel because she failed to file a petition for rehearing with the Court of Appeals, an amended brief, or a petition for transfer in order to raise a Blakely claim.

Kendall was convicted by a jury in 2002 of attempted murder and aggravated battery. The trial court merged the sentences and gave him 30 years in prison. Kendall appealed, and the Court of Appeals vacated his attempted murder conviction and remanded for resentencing. In December 2003, the trial court noted Kendall's aggravating factors and no mitigating factors, and sentenced him to 20 years in the Department of Correction.

Kendall filed another appeal later that month and filed his brief April 28, 2004. The U.S. Supreme Court issued Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), June 24, 2004. In August 2004, the Court of Appeals affirmed Kendall's sentence.

The Indiana Supreme Court ruled in March 2005 in Smylie v. State, 823 N.E.2d 619 (Ind. 2005), that Indiana's sentencing scheme that allowed judges to enhance sentences above the presumptive based on facts neither admitted by the defendant nor proven by a jury violated the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury, and that the new rule of Blakely should apply to all cases pending on direct review at the time Blakely was issued in which the appellant has adequately preserved the issue for appeal.

The Indiana Supreme Court later clarified its ruling in Smylie to say any appellant who filed their initial brief prior to Smylie and failed to raise a Blakely claim but did challenge their sentence in some form could raise a Blakely claim by way of an amendment, petition for rehearing, or petition for transfer.

Because his counsel didn't file a petition for rehearing in the Court of Appeals or file a petition for transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court, Kendall claimed his counsel was ineffective. He filed a petition for post-conviction relief in February 2005, in which the court ruled in May 2007 that his appellate counsel was not ineffective because challenging his sentence under Blakely was not a significant and obvious issue at the time.

Judges James Kirsch and Melissa May agreed with the post-conviction court that Kendall's appellate attorney did not provide ineffective assistance. In order for Kendall to show his constitutional right to effective counsel assistance was violated, he has to show that filing an amended brief or other pleading to raise Blakely issues was within the his counsel's objective standard of reasonable performance, wrote Judge Kirsch.

"Based on stare decisis and the confusion following Blakely and its progeny, we find the standard argued by Kendall to be outside counsel's objective prevailing professional norms. Instead, at the time of Kendall's appeal, raising Blakely issues was only a subjective standard of reasonable performance. Since that time it has proven to be an objective standard that is of no avail to Kendall," he wrote.

The Supreme Court also determined in Smylie that requiring a defendant or counsel to have predicted the outcome of Blakely or of Smylie's decision would be unjust.

"Given the legal environment of the time, an environment marked by unpredictability and uncertainty on this court and elsewhere regarding the application of Blakely, we do not find that counsel was ineffective for failing to seek leave to file an amended brief or to raise the issue on rehearing or petition to transfer," wrote Judge Kirsch.

However, in her dissent, Judge Patricia Riley cited numerous examples in published opinions of other counsel raising Blakely claims via amended briefs that were filed, not only prior to Smylie, but also prior to the court's initial application of Blakely to Indiana's sentencing scheme.

Comparing Kendall's counsel's performance to these other attorneys who represented similarly situated clients with arguable Blakely claims, Judge Riley found Kendall's counsel's performance fell below prevailing professional norms. She concluded Kendall suffered prejudice as a result of his appellate counsel's deficient performance and would remand for resentencing.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT