ILNews

COA finds petitioner failed to show trial counsel was ineffective

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In affirming a post-conviction court’s judgment, the Indiana Court of Appeals found a convicted child molester failed to carry his burden in claiming that his attorney was ineffective.

Ian McCullough was convicted of two counts of Class A felony child molesting and one court of Class C felony child molesting. After his convictions were affirmed on direct appeal, he sought post-conviction relief on the grounds that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

The post-conviction court denied McCullough’s petition.

On appeal in Ian McCullough vs. State of Indiana, 49A02-1106-PC-57, McCullough argues that his trial counsel was ineffective on numerous grounds including that counsel failed to object to evidence of prior uncharged misconduct and to the prosecutor’s references to that misconduct; failed to adequately cross-examine the state’s investigators; failed to make an offer of proof when the trial court excluded his expert’s testimony; failed to present expert evidence of child memory; failed to present certain evidence; and failed to request the jury instruction as mandated by the Protected Person Statute.

The COA noted that to be successful in the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the petitioner must demonstrate both that his counsel’s performance was deficient and that the petitioner was prejudiced by the deficient performance.

In reviewing the claim, the COA concluded that McCullough failed to carry his burden to show that the evidence, as a whole, leads unerringly and unmistakably to a conclusion different from that of the post-conviction court.

Judge Elaine Brown dissented. She wrote, “While some of the errors by trial counsel may not individually be sufficient to prove ineffective representation, when viewed cumulatively counsel’s overall performance fell below the prevailing professional norms….”


 

 

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. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  3. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  4. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  5. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

ADVERTISEMENT