ILNews

Man gets new trial because of ineffective counsel

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Based on ineffective assistance of counsel, the Indiana Court of Appeals today reversed on direct appeal a man’s domestic battery conviction and remanded the case for a new trial.

In Marcus Lewis v. State of Indiana, No. 49A02-0909-CR-920, the appellate court noted a post-conviction hearing is “normally the preferred forum” for such a claim. However, it added that some claims, such as this one, can be evaluated on the trial record alone and resolved on direct appeal.

To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, one must show that the lawyer’s performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.

Lewis was charged with domestic battery and battery as Class A misdemeanors. Parties appeared in court July 31, 2009, before a senior judge for a bench trial, but Lewis said he wanted a jury trial and had requested one during his initial hearing. The senior judge reset the case for jury trial, and counsel filed a written request for the jury trial Aug. 4, 2009.

The sitting trial judge reversed the senior judge’s decision Aug. 5, reset the case for a bench trial, and denied Lewis’ request.

Lewis’ case was tried Aug. 28 before a commissioner, who found him guilty of domestic battery and battery but the battery conviction was vacated because of double jeopardy concerns.

Lewis claimed his counsel failed to timely file a written demand for a jury trial and therefore deprived him of that right under Article I, Section 13 of the Indiana Constitution. Indiana Criminal Rule 22 specifies that a defendant charged with a misdemeanor can demand a jury trial by filing a written demand not later than 10 days before his first scheduled trial date, unless the defendant has not had at least 15 days advance notice of his scheduled trial date and of the consequences of his failure to demand a trial.

Lewis did not have counsel at his June 2, 2009, initial hearing, during which the court appointed counsel to represent him. The court advised Lewis of his jury trial rights and the time limitation. The court’s chronological case summary shows Lewis’ expressed preference for a jury trial. One attorney represented him during his bond hearing June 5, but another attorney represented Lewis at the July 31 bench trial.

The state said Lewis’ claim must fail because, unlike Stevens v. State, 689 N.E.2d 487, 489 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997), there is no evidence that Lewis personally asked any of his attorneys for a jury trial until July 31.

“We conclude that this distinction is not significant because the [chronological case summary] in this case emphatically indicated Lewis’ wish to be tried by a jury. Thus, Lewis’ attorneys should have known of Lewis’ preference for a jury trial from reviewing the CCS and pursued the matter further before the scheduled bench trial,” wrote Senior Judge Betty Barteau.

The court wrote that like Stevens, the failure of the attorneys to file a written jury trial request on Lewis’ behalf cannot be considered a strategic choice. During the July 31 and Aug. 5 hearings, his attorneys argued “at length” that Lewis should be given a jury trial, and on Aug.4, Lewis’ attorneys filed a belated motion for jury trial. Judge Barteau noted such a course is “inconsistent with a strategic determination to seek a bench trial.”

Despite the fact Lewis’ change of representation between hearings likely contributed to counsel’s error, the court concluded the attorneys’ failure to timely file a written request for a jury trial fell below the range of professionally competent representation.

When an attorney’s performance falls below the range of professionally competent representation and deprives a defendant of a fundamental right, such as the right to a jury trial, prejudice is presumed. See Stevens, 689 N.E.2d at 490.

Because Lewis was prejudiced by his attorneys’ error, he did not receive effective assistance of trial counsel with respect to his request for a jury trial.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT