Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
A man whose trial and appellate attorneys both missed filing deadlines had his misdemeanor conviction vacated by the Court of Appeals of Indiana, which reversed a lower court’s decision to deny the man’s post-conviction relief petition.
Steven Ingalls Jr. was charged in 2018 with Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief for allegedly carving initials on the door of a courtroom holding cell and writing on the cell wall in ink.
Ingalls requested a jury trial at his initial hearing, and the court informed him his appointed counsel would have to file a motion for one.
Ingalls’ initial appointed counsel withdrew his appearance due to a conflict, and the court appointed a new attorney, who wrote to Ingalls a few weeks later using an Indianapolis address. But Ingalls was elsewhere in the Indiana Department of Correction.
Upon learning of Ingalls’ desire to be tried by a jury, the attorney requested one by filing a motion, but the request came about a month after the deadline. The court rejected the request as untimely.
Ingalls reiterated his request at a bench trial, but the court again denied it. He was convicted, and the court imposed a suspended sentence of 60 days.
The court then appointed counsel to represent Ingalls in appealing his conviction, but that attorney filed the notice of appeal one day late. The Court of Appeals dismissed the case without reaching the merits in 2020 in Ingalls v. State, 19A-CR-950.
Proceeding pro se, Ingalls petitioned for post-conviction relief, alleging he lost his constitutional right to a jury trial through the ineffective assistance of his trial and appellate counsel.
The Morgan Superior Court denied the petition, ruling Ingalls didn’t prove any of his attorneys were ineffective.
On appeal, Ingalls argued the post-conviction court erroneously rejected his claims related to his second trial attorney and his appellate counsel.
The Court of Appeals agreed.
The record supports Ingalls’ claim that it was the deficient performance of his second trial attorney, and not his own actions, that resulted in an untimely request for a jury trial, the Court of Appeals ruled.
The Court of Appeals found Ingalls was deprived of his right to be informed of his constitutional rights by defense counsel.
“Ingalls knew he had a right to a jury trial because he affirmatively sought it at his initial hearing,” the opinion says. “But we have no evidence before us that Ingalls knew he could be deprived of that right under Criminal Rule 22 if a written request for a jury trial was not filed at least 10 days before his first scheduled trial date.”
All parties next agreed Ingalls’ appellate counsel’s performance was deficient, the Court of Appeals said, so Ingalls concentrated on claiming he was prejudiced by his attorney’s performance.
The Court of Appeals agreed.
The appellate counsel raised the issue of Ingalls’ invalid waiver of his right to a jury trial, the Court of Appeals said, but didn’t file the appeal in a timely manner, so it was dismissed.
“This error was particularly prejudicial here, where the appeal would have revealed that Ingalls had not properly waived his fundamental right to a jury trial,” the opinion says.
The case was remanded with instructions to vacate Ingalls’ conviction for criminal mischief in the underlying cause.
Judge Leanna Weissmann wrote the opinion. Judges Mark Bailey and Elaine Brown concurred.
The case is Steven E. Ingalls, Jr. v. State of Indiana, 22A-PC-2431.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.