The Indiana Court of Appeals rejected a man’s assertion that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney didn’t object to the validity of the order placing him on probation.
Donald Anthony Jordan’s criminal case had been presided over by Judge Thomas Newman in Madison Circuit Court 3. After nearly 12 years of handling matters related to the criminal case, including denying petitions for post-conviction relief, Newman recused himself from Jordan’s case. Judge Dennis Carroll of Madison Circuit Court 6 took over as special judge.
Yet Newman continued to hold hearings and issue orders in Jordan’s case and ordered Jordan released from the Department of Correction. He also granted Jordan’s request to modify his sentence, placing him on probation in summer 2015. But Jordan allegedly violated his probation and Newman held the initial hearings on the matter. Carroll presided over the evidentiary hearing and revoked Jordan’s probation.
Jordan nor his attorney ever raised any issue with Newman presiding over his criminal case after recusal or Carroll’s authority to preside over the probation proceeding.
In David Anthony Jordan v. State of Indiana, 48A02-1510-CR-1846, Jordan for the first time challenges Carroll’s authority to revoke his probation and Newman’s authority to sentence Jordan to probation. But the appellate court didn’t address his arguments because he waived them by not objecting to Carroll’s presiding over the hearing or appealing Newman’s 2015 decision to move Jordan to probation.
The COA also ruled against Jordan on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim relating to his attorney’s failure to bring up these claims. Using the “lesser” standard outlined in Baum v. State, 533 N.E.2d 1200, 1201 (Ind. 1989), Jordan failed to show that his probation revocation counsel was ineffective. He has not alleged or shown he was deprived of a fair hearing either, the judges held.