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. The Department of Education still has over $100 million of ITT Education Services money in the form of $100+ million Letters of Credit. That money was supposed to be used by The DOE to help students. The DOE did nothing to help students. The DOE essentially stole the money from ITT Tech and still has the money. The trustee should be going after the DOE to get the money back for people who are owed that money, including shareholders.

  2. Do you know who the sponsor of the last-minute amendment was?

  3. Law firms of over 50 don't deliver good value, thats what this survey really tells you. Anybody that has seen what they bill for compared to what they deliver knows that already, however.

  4. My husband left me and the kids for 2 years, i did everything humanly possible to get him back i prayed i even fasted nothing worked out. i was so diver-stated, i was left with nothing no money to pay for kids up keep. my life was tearing apart. i head that he was trying to get married to another lady in Italy, i look for urgent help then i found Dr.Mack in the internet by accident, i was skeptical because i don’t really believe he can bring husband back because its too long we have contacted each other, we only comment on each other status on Facebook and when ever he come online he has never talks anything about coming back to me, i really had to give Dr.Mack a chance to help me out, luckily for me he was God sent and has made everything like a dream to me, Dr.Mack told me that everything will be fine, i called him and he assured me that my Husband will return, i was having so many doubt but now i am happy,i can’t believe it my husband broke up with his Italian lady and he is now back to me and he can’t even stay a minute without me, all he said to me was that he want me back, i am really happy and i cried so much because it was unbelievable, i am really happy and my entire family are happy for me but they never know whats the secret behind this…i want you all divorce lady or single mother, unhappy relationship to please contact this man for help and everything will be fine i really guarantee you….if you want to contact him you can reach him through dr.mac@yahoo. com..,

  5. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

ADVERTISEMENT