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. 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