ILNews

Man not prejudiced by counsel's deficient performance

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


The Indiana Court of Appeals has upheld the decision to deny a man’s request for post-conviction relief, finding that although his attorney’s performance was deficient for not investigating whether a previous conviction attributed to the defendant was really his, the man couldn’t show he was prejudiced.

Brian Roberts was charged with burglary and theft, and the state filed a motion to add an allegation that Roberts was a habitual offender. The motion included a 1996 burglary conviction that belonged to another Brian Roberts. Roberts told his attorney that the 1996 conviction wasn’t his, but the attorney never investigated the matter.

As part of a plea agreement to Class B felony burglary and Class D felony theft, Roberts’ attorney and the state agreed the state wouldn’t pursue the motion to amend the charging information to add the habitual offender allegation in exchange for Roberts’ guilty plea. There was no written plea agreement presented to the court. Before he was sentenced, Roberts tried to have the guilty plea withdrawn, but the motion was denied and he was sentenced to 20 years with five years suspended.

His sentence was upheld on direct appeal, so Roberts filed a motion for post-conviction relief, claiming that he was told if he didn’t plead guilty, he’d face a 30-year sentence for the habitual offender enhancement. The post-conviction court denied his motion for relief.

In Brian Roberts v. State of Indiana, No. 24A04-1011-PC-726, the Court of Appeals affirmed that Roberts’ plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. He knew the 1996 conviction wasn’t his, so he didn’t believe he was eligible for the enhancement. Therefore, the state’s threat to pursue the amendment to add the habitual offender count couldn’t have been his main motivation to plead guilty, wrote Judge Paul Mathias.

His trial counsel should have investigated whether the 1996 conviction was not Roberts’, but that failure wasn’t so material to his decision to plea guilty because he knew that he was not a habitual offender, the judge continued. Roberts’ attorney was also arguably deficient by allowing Roberts to plead guilty without a written plea agreement, but Roberts didn’t establish prejudice due to his attorney’s deficient performance.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • huh?
    let me get this right. he plead in exchange for them to drop the habitual offender charge, which was based on a conviction that wasnt his-- and his lawyer, clueless, told him to take the deal because he never bothered with checking that even though his client told him so? and thats not ineffective assistance of counsel? is it supposed to be effective? he gave up something for nothing and thats not being harmed? wow. Gee I hope I dont draw the wrong lawyer card in Indiana if I ever get in trouble.

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT