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

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. I like the concept. Seems like a good idea and really inexpensive to manage.

  2. I don't agree that this is an extreme case. There are more of these people than you realize - people that are vindictive and/or with psychological issues have clogged the system with baseless suits that are costly to the defendant and to taxpayers. Restricting repeat offenders from further abusing the system is not akin to restricting their freedon, but to protecting their victims, and the court system, from allowing them unfettered access. From the Supreme Court opinion "he has burdened the opposing party and the courts of this state at every level with massive, confusing, disorganized, defective, repetitive, and often meritless filings."

  3. So, if you cry wolf one too many times courts may "restrict" your ability to pursue legal action? Also, why is document production equated with wealth? Anyone can "produce probably tens of thousands of pages of filings" if they have a public library card. I understand this is an extreme case, but our Supreme Court really got this one wrong.

  4. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  5. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

ADVERTISEMENT