ILNews

Court split on ineffective trial counsel

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A panel of Indiana Court of Appeals judges disagreed that an attorney was ineffective because the majority found the attorney told her client he "should" win the case whereas one judge pointed out in the record the attorney admitted to telling the client he "would" win.

"Based upon the record, I conclude that Rowe demonstrated that his trial counsel's ineffective performance affected the outcome of the plea process and that there is a reasonable probability that, but for trial counsel's errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different," wrote Judge Elaine Brown in her dissent in Terry Rowe, Jr. v. State of Indiana, No. 32A04-0904-PC-186.

Terry Rowe was charged with two counts of Class B felony dealing in cocaine and one count of Class A felony dealing in cocaine after he purchased drugs from a confidential informant. There were police video and audio tapes of the controlled buys. After the confidential informant died, the state offered Rowe a plea agreement. On the advice of his counsel, he declined. He was convicted in a bench trial and given a longer sentence than the plea agreement offered.

His attorney - who was just out of law school and hadn't tried a Class A felony case - told Rowe she thought it would be difficult for the state to prove its case without the informant. According to the record, she testified she told Rowe that he "should" win the case and that he "would" win the case.

The majority agreed with post-conviction court's denial of Rowe's petition for relief because there's evidence to support the post-conviction court's finding the attorney's performance was reasonable, wrote Judge Terry Crone. The judge noted that different interpretations of the record are possible, but the majority couldn't say the post-conviction court's findings and conclusions were clearly erroneous.

Judge Brown wrote Rowe's trial counsel didn't adequately investigate his case and told him that he'd win. In addition to the record showing the attorney testifying she said Rowe would win the case, she also admitted she didn't depose any members of the Drug Task Force before telling Rowe he'd be successful at trial.

Rowe testified he rejected the agreement based on his attorney's advice and if he knew he could have been convicted based on the evidence he would have accepted the plea agreement.

The appellate court also addressed the state's argument that to establish prejudice, Rowe must show that he would have accepted the plea agreement had he known there was a possibility of conviction without the confidential informant, and the trial court would have accepted the plea agreement. Citing Lessig v. State, 489 N.E.2d 978, 983 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986), the Court of Appeals, without addressing the merits as applied to the instant case, held the correct reading of Lessig is that a defendant must put forth evidence that the trial court is legally permitted to accept his plea agreement.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT