ILNews

Woman unable to prove attorney actions were prejudicial

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A woman’s petition for post-conviction relief on the grounds her trial counsel was ineffective was denied by the Indiana Court of Appeals.

Anastazia Schmid was told on March 2, 2001, that her boyfriend, Tony Heathcote, allegedly had molested her daughter from a prior marriage. While Schmid and Heathcote were having sexual relations on March 4, 2001, Heathcote suggested that Schmid play the part of the little girl and he would play the part of the daddy. This statement caused Schmid to think of her daughter. She then got a knife and began stabbing Heathcote who was blindfolded and restrained at the ankles. He was stabbed 39 times and died. Later, Schmid indicated that at the time of the stabbing she had heard a voice telling her that she was the messiah and Heathcote was evil and needed to be eliminated.

Following a jury trial, Schmid was convicted with verdicts of guilty but mentally ill. She then appealed her convictions of Class C felony battery by means of a deadly weapon, Class C felony criminal recklessness by means of a deadly weapon, Class B felony aggravated battery, Class C felony battery resulting in serious injury, murder, and two counts of Class D felony criminal recklessness.

On Feb. 7, 2005, Schmid filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief. She amended the petition five years later. The post-conviction court denied her petition on Aug. 18, 2011.

“All the arguments Schmid raises in this appeal assert her trial attorneys were ineffective,” Judge Melissa May wrote for the majority. The court reviewed her claim under the two-part test announced in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). To prevail, she must show counsel’s performance fell below an objective level of reasonableness based on prevailing norms and that deficient performance resulted in prejudice.

Schmid argued that her attorneys should have raised the “justified reasonable force” defense; that her attorneys should have asked for another competency hearing after she was found competent to stand trial; that her attorneys did not communicate a plea offer; and that her attorneys denied her the right to testify in her own defense at trial.

The COA found that Schmid did not demonstrate counsels’ alleged errors were prejudicial and affirmed the denial of her petition for post-conviction relief.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

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

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. 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?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT