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. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT