ILNews

Attorneys' performances don't require post-conviction relief

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A LaPorte County man with a lengthy criminal history couldn’t convince the Indiana Court of Appeals that he is entitled to post-conviction relief due to ineffective assistance from his trial and appellate attorneys.

In Charles A. Walker v. State of Indiana, 46A04-1210-PC-519, Charles Walker appealed the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. He had been convicted of robbery and found to be a habitual offender. He was sentenced to 40 years.

Walker claimed his trial attorney was ineffective by not challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support the habitual offender finding via a motion for directed verdict. He argued the evidence didn’t establish his identity and the sequence of the predicate offenses. The COA found the attorney was not ineffective with respect to Walker’s identity, as a police officer and probation officer involved in Walker’s 1980 and 1989 convictions, used to support the habitual offender finding, affirmed Walker’s identity.

The judges did find that the trial counsel’s performance was deficient by failing to request a directed verdict after the state didn’t present documentary evidence establishing the proper sequencing of the predicate offenses. But even if his attorney had requested a directed verdict, the state “simply could have requested that the trial court exercise its discretion and grant permission to reopen the case to introduce the 1989 charging information,” Judge Terry Crone wrote. Thus, it’s not reasonably probable that Walker would have received a different outcome on the habitual offender count.

The appellate court also found that the trial attorney was not ineffective in failing to object to the jury instructions regarding the habitual offender finding or to the habitual offender verdict form.

Regarding his appellate counsel, Walker argued that attorney was ineffective by not raising the same habitual offender issues that formed the basis of claims against his trial counsel. Walker’s appellate attorney raised two issues on direct appeal: the sufficiency of evidence supporting the robbery conviction and the appropriateness of the sentence. The appellate court couldn’t determine why the appellate attorney didn’t raise the issue concerning the habitual offender designation because the attorney was deceased at the time of the post-conviction hearing.

The unraised issue of sufficiency of evidence supporting the habitual offender finding was not clearly stronger than the issues raised by the appellate attorney, Crone wrote, pointing to the record on direct appeal. The record also shows that the attorney did request the COA vacate the habitual offender filing in conjunction with his appropriateness of sentence claim.
 

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. All the lawyers involved in this don't add up to a hill of beans; mostly yes-men punching their tickets for future advancement. REMF types. Window dressing. Who in this mess was a real hero? the whistleblower that let the public know about the torture, whom the US sent to Jail. John Kyriakou. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/26/us/ex-officer-for-cia-is-sentenced-in-leak-case.html?_r=0 Now, considering that Torture is Illegal, considering that during Vietnam a soldier was court-martialed and imprisoned for waterboarding, why has the whistleblower gone to jail but none of the torturers have been held to account? It's amazing that Uncle Sam's sunk lower than Vietnam. But that's where we're at. An even more unjust and pointless war conducted in an even more bogus manner. this from npr: "On Jan. 21, 1968, The Washington Post ran a front-page photo of a U.S. soldier supervising the waterboarding of a captured North Vietnamese soldier. The caption said the technique induced "a flooding sense of suffocation and drowning, meant to make him talk." The picture led to an Army investigation and, two months later, the court martial of the soldier." Today, the US itself has become lawless.

  2. "Brain Damage" alright.... The lunatic is on the grass/ The lunatic is on the grass/ Remembering games and daisy chains and laughs/ Got to keep the loonies on the path.... The lunatic is in the hall/ The lunatics are in my hall/ The paper holds their folded faces to the floor/ And every day the paper boy brings more/ And if the dam breaks open many years too soon/ And if there is no room upon the hill/ And if your head explodes with dark forbodings too/ I'll see you on the dark side of the moon!!!

  3. It is amazing how selectively courts can read cases and how two very similar factpatterns can result in quite different renderings. I cited this very same argument in Brown v. Bowman, lost. I guess it is panel, panel, panel when one is on appeal. Sad thing is, I had Sykes. Same argument, she went the opposite. Her Rooker-Feldman jurisprudence is now decidedly unintelligible.

  4. November, 2014, I was charged with OWI/Endangering a person. I was not given a Breathalyzer test and the arresting officer did not believe that alcohol was in any way involved. I was self-overmedicated with prescription medications. I was taken to local hospital for blood draw to be sent to State Tox Lab. My attorney gave me a cookie-cutter plea which amounts to an ALCOHOL-related charge. Totally unacceptable!! HOW can I get my TOX report from the state lab???

  5. My mother got temporary guardianship of my children in 2012. my husband and I got divorced 2015 the judge ordered me to have full custody of all my children. Does this mean the temporary guardianship is over? I'm confused because my divorce papers say I have custody and he gets visits and i get to claim the kids every year on my taxes. So just wondered since I have in black and white that I have custody if I can go get my kids from my moms and not go to jail?

ADVERTISEMENT