ILNews

COA affirms lower court in shoe-killing case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has upheld a post-conviction court’s determination that a man convicted of kicking another man to death cannot appeal his conviction.

In Matthew Conder v. State of Indiana, No.49A02-1012-PC-1404, Matthew Conder claimed that his conviction of Class A felony voluntary manslaughter should be reversed because his counsel was ineffective. But the Court of Appeals held that Conder’s attorney, Arnold Baratz, acted in accordance with Conder’s wishes by appealing Conder’s initial murder conviction, which resulted in Conder being charged with the lesser offense of Class A felony voluntary manslaughter.

In 2003, Conder kicked another man to death in a bar parking lot. He then took the victim’s wallet and attempted to conceal his guilt by bleaching his shoes. A bench trial in 2004 found Conder guilty of murder, robbery, and theft. Conder filed a motion requesting that the trial court enter a finding of guilty to voluntary manslaughter, rather than murder, arguing that his shoe constituted a “deadly weapon” for the purposes of the voluntary manslaughter statute.

The trial court conducted a hearing on the motion, ultimately entering the voluntary manslaughter conviction instead of murder and sentenced Conder to 40 years for that charge and three years for theft, with the sentences to be served consecutively. Conder then appealed the court’s decision.

In Conder v. State, No. 49A02-0412-CR-1070, slip op. at 2-4 (Ind. Ct. App. Aug. 17, 2005), the appeals court found that because Conder asked the court to find him guilty of manslaughter, he waived any possible objection to that conviction. However, the COA did find the sentence to be inappropriate and reduced it to an aggregate 33 years.

In his most recent appeal, Conder contended that his attorney performed deficiently because he should not have argued that a shoe is a deadly weapon. Conder claimed that if Baratz had not admitted to the shoe’s role as a deadly weapon, Conder could have been convicted of Class B felony manslaughter, rather than a Class A felony.

The appeals court wrote that Baratz had, in fact, argued for the B felony. At trial, when pressed to respond about whether a shoe constituted a deadly weapon, Baratz did not actually concede to that fact, but merely stated that “the Court could very well find that it fits that definition.” Had the trial court determined the shoe wasn’t a deadly weapon, then Conder’s murder conviction would’ve stood. Baratz’s effective representation of his client is what resulted in the lesser charge of manslaughter, the appeals court held.  

The COA affirmed the post-conviction court’s decision denying Conder’s petition, stating that he failed to prove his counsel had acted deficiently.






 

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. How nice, on the day of my car accident on the way to work at the Indiana Supreme Court. Unlike the others, I did not steal any money or do ANYTHING unethical whatsoever. I am suing the Indiana Supreme Court and appealed the failure of the district court in SDIN to protect me. I am suing the federal judge because she failed to protect me and her abandonment of jurisdiction leaves her open to lawsuits because she stripped herself of immunity. I am a candidate for Indiana Supreme Court justice, and they imposed just enough sanction so that I am made ineligible. I am asking the 7th Circuit to remove all of them and appoint me as the new Chief Justice of Indiana. That's what they get for dishonoring my sacrifice and and violating the ADA in about 50 different ways.

  2. Can anyone please help this mother and child? We can all discuss the mother's rights, child's rights when this court only considered the father's rights. It is actually scarey to think a man like this even being a father period with custody of this child. I don't believe any of his other children would have anything good to say about him being their father! How many people are afraid to say anything or try to help because they are afraid of Carl. He's a bully and that his how he gets his way. Please someone help this mother and child. There has to be someone that has the heart and the means to help this family.

  3. I enrolled America's 1st tax-free Health Savings Account (HSA) so you can trust me. I bet 1/3 of my clients were lawyers because they love tax-free deposits, growth and withdrawals or total tax freedom. Most of the time (always) these clients are uninformed about insurance law. Employer-based health insurance is simple if you read the policy. It says, Employers (lawyers) and employees who are working 30-hours-per-week are ELIGIBLE for insurance. Then I show the lawyer the TERMINATION clause which states: When you are no longer ELIGIBLE! Then I ask a closing question (sales term) to the lawyer which is, "If you have a stroke or cancer and become too sick to work can you keep your health insurance?" If the lawyer had dependent children they needed a "Dependent Conversion Privilege" in case their child got sick or hurt which the lawyers never had. Lawyers are pretty easy sales. Save premium, eliminate taxes and build wealth!

  4. Ok, so cheap laughs made about the Christian Right. hardiharhar ... All kidding aside, it is Mohammad's followers who you should be seeking divine protection from. Allahu Akbar But progressives are in denial about that, even as Europe crumbles.

  5. Father's rights? What about a mothers rights? A child's rights? Taking a child from the custody of the mother for political reasons! A miscarriage of justice! What about the welfare of the child? Has anyone considered parent alienation, the father can't erase the mother from the child's life. This child loves the mother and the home in Wisconsin, friends, school and family. It is apparent the father hates his ex-wife more than he loves his child! I hope there will be a Guardian Ad Litem, who will spend time with and get to know the child, BEFORE being brainwashed by the father. This is not just a child! A little person with rights and real needs, a stable home and a parent that cares enough to let this child at least finish the school year, where she is happy and comfortable! Where is the justice?

ADVERTISEMENT