Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1710-PC-2326 | April 24, 2019 Page 1 of 17

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before any 

court except for the purpose of establishing 

the defense of res judicata, collateral 

estoppel, or the law of the case.

APPELLANT, PRO SE

Michael Highbaugh

Carlisle, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Ian McLean

Supervising Deputy Attorney 

General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Michael A. Highbaugh,

Appellant-Respondent,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Petitioner.

April 24, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

49A02-1710-PC-2326

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable Mark D. Stoner, 

Judge

The Honorable Jeffrey L. Marchal, 

Magistrate

Trial Court Cause No. 

49G06-9712-PC-183229 

Pyle, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1710-PC-2326 | April 24, 2019 Page 2 of 17

Statement of the Case

[1] Michael Highbaugh (“Highbaugh”) appeals the denial of his petition for postconviction relief. Finding no error, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial 

of Highbaugh’s petition.

[2] We affirm.

Issue

The sole issue for our review is whether the post-conviction court 

erred in denying Highbaugh’s petition for post-conviction relief.

Facts

[3] The underlying facts in this case, taken from the Indiana Supreme Court’s 

opinion in Highbaugh’s direct appeal, are as follows:

On the evening of December 11, 1997, David Hairston was at his 

home in Indianapolis, as were twenty-year-old Khalalah and 

fifteen-year-old Michael. When the doorbell rang, Khalalah 

answered and observed two men, one of whom was wearing a 

police uniform. She also observed a police car. The two men 

entered the foyer uninvited and requested to search Hairston’s 

home, indicating that other officers were en route with a warrant.

Hairston refused to let the men search his home until the warrant 

arrived and told them to wait outside. When they refused, 

Hairston demanded their names and badge numbers. The 

uniformed officer stated that his name was “Thompson.” 

Hairston asked “Thompson” where his name badge was, to 

which the officer replied he was not wearing his badge. Hairston 

then brushed aside the officer’s coat and saw a nametag that read 

“Powell.”
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1710-PC-2326 | April 24, 2019 Page 3 of 17

The man wearing civilian clothing (later identified as Highbaugh) 

then pulled out a gun and put it to Hairston’s head. After 

Hairston refused Highbaugh’s demands to lie down on the floor, 

Highbaugh shot him in the head. He died as a result.

In the meantime, Khalalah and Michael ran from the foyer into 

the kitchen. Highbaugh chased them and shot Michael in the 

head. The resulting wound was not fatal, and Michael lay 

motionless pretending to be dead. Highbaugh then placed the 

barrel of the gun against Khalalah’s head and pulled the trigger. 

When it misfired, Highbaugh grabbed a knife and stabbed 

Khalalah in the neck approximately ten times. She survived.

While motionless on the kitchen floor, Michael saw [Myron]

Powell [(“Powell”)] run to the back of the house. After several 

minutes, he saw Powell run out the door carrying several bags.

Highbaugh v. State, 773 N.E.2d 247, 250 (Ind. 2002).

[4] In December 1997, the State charged Highbaugh with murder, felony murder, 

two counts of attempted murder, robbery, and carrying a handgun without a 

license. In early 1998, the State filed an habitual offender enhancement and a 

request for the death penalty. Two attorneys were appointed to represent 

Highbaugh.

[5] In February 2000, Highbaugh and the State entered into a plea agreement, 

which provided that, in exchange for Highbaugh’s guilty plea to murder and 

two counts of attempted murder, the State would drop the remaining charges

and the habitual offender enhancement. Highbaugh also promised to cooperate 

fully and truthfully with the State in the prosecution of his co-defendant,

Powell. The agreement further provided that if Highbaugh failed to cooperate 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1710-PC-2326 | April 24, 2019 Page 4 of 17

in Powell’s prosecution, the State reserved the right to withdraw from the 

agreement. In addition, the plea agreement provided a sentencing range of 

sixty-five years to life without parole, which would be decided by the trial court

after a sentencing hearing. 

[6] At the guilty plea hearing held that same day, Highbaugh told the trial court 

that he understood that he was pleading guilty to murdering Hairston and 

attempting to murder Khalalah and Michael and that he was admitting the 

truth and the facts of the murder and attempted murder charges. He also stated 

that he understood that the remaining charges would be dismissed and that 

after a sentencing hearing, the trial court would sentence him within a range 

from sixty-five years to life without parole. The trial court also reviewed the 

provision of the agreement regarding Highbaugh’s cooperation with the State in 

its case against Powell, which Highbaugh also said that he understood. 

Highbaugh assured the trial court that he had reviewed the plea agreement with 

his attorneys before he had signed and initialed it, that he had had sufficient 

time to discuss his case with them, and that he was satisfied with their 

performance on his behalf.

[7] The trial court explained to Highbaugh that his trial was scheduled to begin in 

three days. The trial court also explained Highbaugh’s sentencing exposure to a 

term of years, to life without parole, or to death if he was tried and convicted at 

trial. Highbaugh told the trial court that he understood these matters and had 

had sufficient time to discuss them with his attorneys before pleading guilty.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1710-PC-2326 | April 24, 2019 Page 5 of 17

[8] Also at the guilty plea hearing, the trial court asked Highbaugh’s attorneys if, 

based on their discussions with Highbaugh, they had had the opportunity to 

discuss the possible penalties that he faced in connection with the case and 

under the terms of the plea agreement, and they confirmed that they had. The 

trial court also asked the attorneys if they believed that he understood all rights 

and possible sentences in connection with the case, and they responded that 

they did. Both attorneys also told the trial court that they would have been 

prepared to try the case three days later.

[9] Thereafter, the State set forth the following factual basis for the charges:

[H]ad this matter gone to trial, the State would have called 

Khalalah Ector . . . who would have testified that on December 

11th of 1997 she was at a home located at 4307 North Sunshine 

Avenue in Indianapolis, Marion County, Indiana. Ms. Ector 

would testify that she believed that home to be occupied by a 

person known to her as David C. Hairston . . . Ms. Ector would 

testify that at approximately 10:30 on December 11th of 1997 two 

men appeared at the door of that home, the door which she 

answered. One of those men was in full police uniform and she 

later identified that person as Myron Powell. The other man 

who was at that door, Ms. Ector later identified as Michael 

Highbaugh. Ms. Ector would testify that the two men engaged in 

conversation with David Hairston, who was the occupant of the 

home, and at some point during the conversation the Defendant, 

Michael Highbaugh, produced a handgun, firing two shots at 

David Hairston. Medical testimony would show that those two 

gunshots killed David Hairston. Ms. Ector would further testify 

that she observed the Defendant, Michael Highbaugh, fire a shot 

at her cousin, Michael Ector, who was also at that home and that 

shot did strike Michael Ector. Ms. Ector would also testify that 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1710-PC-2326 | April 24, 2019 Page 6 of 17

the Defendant, Michael Highbaugh, grabbed a knife from the 

kitchen and stabbed her about the neck and throat area.

(PCR App. Vol. 2 at 66-67). When the State completed the factual basis, the 

trial court asked Highbaugh if the factual basis was true, and Highbaugh 

responded that it was. 

[10] At the end of the guilty plea hearing, the trial court concluded that Highbaugh’s 

guilty plea had been freely and voluntarily given with a full understanding of 

the charges and penalties. The trial court accepted Highbaugh’s plea and 

ordered the preparation of a presentence report. The trial court and the parties

then discussed setting Highbaugh’s sentencing hearing after Powell’s scheduled

trial.

[11] In March 2000, when Highbaugh refused to answer questions during a 

deposition taken by Powell’s counsel, counsel filed a motion to hold Highbaugh 

in contempt. The following week, Highbaugh refused to participate in the 

preparation of his presentence investigation report and told the officer assigned 

to complete the report that “he was going to reject the [p]lea [a]greement 

‘because [he] didn’t do the crime.’” (Supp. Tr. Vol. 1 at 9). Highbaugh again

refused to participate in a rescheduled meeting with the officer in April 2000.

[12] Also in April 2000, Highbaugh filed a pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea 

wherein he stated that he had had time to reflect on the guilty plea and wanted 

to withdraw it and go to trial on the original charges. Highbaugh specifically 

alleged that “he [had been] forced and lied to in order to take the plea 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1710-PC-2326 | April 24, 2019 Page 7 of 17

agreement” and that his attorneys had “used family to influence [the] signing of 

[the] plea.” (Tr. Vol. 5 at 1219). He further alleged that he felt that he was “not 

being properly represented by his counsel” and that there had been “prejudice 

and bias acts committed against him in the court room.” (Tr. Vol. 5 at 1219). 

Highbaugh listed no specific examples in support of his allegations. 

[13] The trial court held a sentencing hearing later that month. At the beginning of 

the hearing, the trial court addressed Highbaugh’s motion to withdraw his 

guilty plea and asked Highbaugh to “tell [it] whatever [he] want[ed] [it] to hear 

regarding [his] motion.” (Tr. Vol 6 at 1258-59). Highbaugh responded that he 

had been “pressured and coerced by [his] attorneys to sign the plea agreement” 

and he had “lied” to the trial court because he had been told that “when the 

Presentence people come that I could tell them that I didn’t do it[.]” (Tr. Vol. 6 

at 1259). The trial court then asked Highbaugh’s attorneys whether they 

believed that Highbaugh had “made a knowing and voluntary waiver of his 

rights when he pled guilty in this case.” (Tr. Vol. 6 at 1260). Both attorneys 

responded affirmatively. The trial court concluded that there was “no doubt in 

[its] mind . . . [that Highbaugh] knew exactly what [he was] doing . . . when 

[he] entered into this plea agreement,” and denied Highbaugh’s petition to 

withdraw his guilty plea. (Tr. Vol. 6 at 1260).

[14] The next stage of the sentencing hearing focused on the statutory aggravator 

that Hairston’s murder was committed during the commission of a robbery. 

Specifically, at this point, one of Highbaugh’s attorneys “move[d] to exclude 

any evidence . . . that [was] not related to the statutory aggravator, that being an 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1710-PC-2326 | April 24, 2019 Page 8 of 17

intentional killing during the commission of a [r]obbery.” (Tr. Vol. 6 at 1261). 

The trial court granted the motion and heard testimony that after the shootings, 

Powell ran out of the apartment with a zip-lock bag of marijuana and a brown 

grocery bag. Following the testimony, the trial court concluded that the State 

had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Highbaugh had killed Hairston 

during the commission of a robbery. The trial court sentenced Highbaugh to 

life without the possibility of parole for the murder conviction.

[15] The final stage of the sentencing hearing focused on the sentences for the 

attempted murder convictions. After hearing testimony, the trial court found 

the following aggravating factors: (1) Highbaugh’s prior criminal history, 

which included three felonies; (2) his prior attempts at rehabilitation had been 

unsuccessful; (3) Highbaugh’s probation has been revoked in the past; (4) 

Highbaugh was in need of correctional or rehabilitative treatment that could 

best be provided by commitment to a penal facility; (5) the facts and 

circumstances of the case, including the attempt to eliminate three witnesses, 

the commission of a robbery during the attempted killings, and the fact that the 

two attempted murder victims suffered from protracted impairment. The trial 

court also found the following two mitigating factors: (1) Highbaugh had the 

support of family and friends; and (2) Highbaugh was emotionally and 

physically abused as a child. “Weighing these matters out,” the trial court 

sentenced Highbaugh to fifty years for each attempted murder conviction and 

ordered the sentences to run consecutive to each other and with the life without 

parole sentence. (Tr. Vol. 6 at 1375).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1710-PC-2326 | April 24, 2019 Page 9 of 17

[16] Two days after the sentencing hearing, the trial court held a hearing on Powell’s 

motion to hold Highbaugh in contempt. Following the hearing, the trial court 

ordered Highbaugh to answer Powell’s questions and told him that if he refused 

to do so, he could be found in contempt and sentenced for up to six months in 

jail and fined up to $500. When Highbaugh told the trial court that he was 

going to remain silent, the trial court found him to be in contempt, sentenced 

him to six months in jail concurrent with the sentence he was serving, and fined 

him $500.

[17] Highbaugh appealed his sentence and the finding of contempt. He argued that 

the trial court had erred by ordering the sentences for his attempted murder 

convictions to run consecutive to his life without parole sentence, and that the 

trial court’s sentencing order was deficient because it had not specified and 

articulated the balancing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Before 

the Indiana Supreme Court had ruled on these issues, the trial court issued an 

amended sentencing order specifying that Highbaugh’s sentences for attempted 

murder would be served consecutively to each other but concurrently with the 

life without parole sentence. The Indiana Supreme Court subsequently issued 

an order noting that the trial court had “corrected the first problem . . . but [had 

taken] no action with regard to the second problem: the specificity of the 

sentencing order[.]” (P.C.R. App Vol. 2 at 207). The Court remanded 

Highbaugh’s case to the trial court for entry of a new sentencing order, which 

could be appealed with supplemental briefs. In June 2001, the trial court issued 

more specific findings and conclusions on the life without parole sentence.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1710-PC-2326 | April 24, 2019 Page 10 of 17

[18] In his direct appeal, Highbaugh raised four issues. He first argued that there 

was insufficient evidence to support his life without parole sentence for the 

murder of Hairston. Specifically, he contended that the State had failed to 

prove that he had committed an intentional killing during the commission of a 

robbery. According to Highbaugh, the State had failed to establish that any 

property of value had been taken and had failed to prove that any property was 

taken from the presence of Hairston. The Indiana Supreme Court disagreed, 

pointed out that Highbaugh and Powell had left Hairston’s house with 

packaged marijuana and other bags, and concluded that there was sufficient 

evidence to support the statutory aggravator. Highbaugh, 773 N.E.2d at 251.

[19] Secondly, Highbaugh contended on appeal that the trial court had wrongfully 

rejected the following proffered mitigators: (1) Hairston facilitated the offense; 

(2) Highbaugh was under Powell’s control; (3) Highbaugh’s life without parole 

sentence was not proportional to Powell’s sixty-five year sentence; and (4) 

Powell was not found guilty of robbery. Third, he argued that his life sentence 

was manifestly unreasonable. The Indiana Supreme Court concluded that the 

trial court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting these mitigators and that 

Highbaugh’s sentence was not manifestly unreasonable. Id. at 252-53.

[20] Lastly, Highbaugh argued that the trial court erred when it found him in 

contempt for refusing to answer questions from Powell’s counsel. Highbaugh

specifically argued that he could not be ordered to provide testimony in 

Powell’s case because he possessed a Fifth Amendment right to remain silent so 

as not to incriminate himself. The Indiana Supreme Court concluded that 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1710-PC-2326 | April 24, 2019 Page 11 of 17

because Highbaugh had expressed his intent to appeal his life sentence, he may 

have retained his privilege with regard to the statutory aggravator. Id. at 254. 

However, the privilege would have extended only to questions that could 

incriminate him on that matter, and Highbaugh could have answered any 

number of questions without further incriminating himself. Id. Because he 

refused to answer any questions, the trial court could properly find him in 

contempt. Id. The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed both Highbaugh’s

convictions and sentence.

[21] Highbaugh filed a petition for post-conviction relief in February 2003 and later 

withdrew it. He filed a second petition in May 2016, and amended it in June 

2016 and in March 2017. The post-conviction court held a hearing on 

Highbaugh’s amended petition in May 2017. Highbaugh did not testify or call 

any witnesses. He told the post-conviction court that he just “need[ed] to enter 

some things on the record.” (P.-C.R. Tr. at 3). The post-conviction court asked 

Highbaugh if he was going to “pursue a Petition for Post-Conviction Relief 

alleging ineffective assistance of counsel without calling [his] counsel.” (P.-

C.R. Tr. at 7). Highbaugh responded that he was because “everything that [he 

was] alleging [was] on the record.” (P.-C.R. Tr. at 7). 

[22] In September 2017, the post-conviction court issued a detailed fourteen-page 

order denying Highbaugh’s petition. Highbaugh now appeals.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1710-PC-2326 | April 24, 2019 Page 12 of 17

Decision

[23] At the outset, we note that Highbaugh proceeds pro se. A litigant who 

proceeds pro se is held to the same rules of procedure that trained counsel is 

bound to follow. Smith v. Donahue, 907 N.E.2d 553, 555 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), 

trans. denied, cert. dismissed. One risk a litigant takes when he proceeds pro se is 

that he will not know how to accomplish all the things an attorney would know 

how to accomplish. Id. When a party elects to represent himself, there is no 

reason for us to indulge in any benevolent presumption on his behalf or to 

waive any rule for the orderly and proper conduct of his appeal. Foley v. 

Mannor, 844 N.E.2d 494, 502 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). We now turn to the merits 

of Highbaugh’s argument that the post-conviction court erred in denying his 

petition. 

[24] A petitioner who has been denied post-conviction relief faces a rigorous 

standard of review. Dewitt v. State, 755 N.E.2d 167, 169 (Ind. 2001). As such, 

the petitioner must convince the court on review that the evidence as a whole 

leads unerringly and unmistakably to a decision opposite that reached by the 

post-conviction court. Id. at 170. Stated differently, this Court will disturb a 

post-conviction court’s decision as being contrary to law only where the 

evidence is without conflict and leads to but one conclusion, and the postconviction court has reached the opposite conclusion. Id. Further, the 

reviewing court accepts the post-conviction court’s findings of fact unless 

clearly erroneous. Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1710-PC-2326 | April 24, 2019 Page 13 of 17

1. Insufficient Factual Basis

[25] Highbaugh first argues that the post-conviction court erred in denying his 

petition because there was an insufficient factual basis to support his plea of 

guilty to murder. Specifically, he contends that the factual basis should have 

included facts regarding the commission of a robbery. 

[26] A trial court may not accept a plea of guilty unless it determines that a sufficient 

factual basis exists to support the plea. Dewitt, 755 N.E.2d at 172 (citing IND.

CODE § 35-35-1-3). A factual basis exists where there is evidence about the 

elements of the crime from which a trial court could reasonably conclude that 

the defendant is guilty. Dewitt at 172. The factual basis of a guilty plea need 

not be established beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. Rather, relatively minimal 

evidence can be adequate. Id. In addition, to be entitled to post-conviction 

relief, the defendant must prove that he was prejudiced by the lack of a factual 

basis. Id.

[27] Here, our review of the charging information reveals that the State charged 

Highbaugh with murder for knowingly killing Hairston by shooting him with a 

handgun. At the guilty plea hearing, the factual basis provided that Highbaugh 

shot Hairston, and that Hairston died as a result of the gunshot. This is 

sufficient evidence for the trial court to reasonably conclude that Highbaugh 

was guilty of murder. To the extent that Highbaugh argues that the factual 

basis is insufficient because the “State made no mention of a commission of a 

robbery,” he is mistaken. (Appellant’s Br. at 19). The commission of a robbery 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1710-PC-2326 | April 24, 2019 Page 14 of 17

is not an element of murder.1 Rather, as the State correctly points out, the 

commission of a robbery during a murder is a statutory aggravating sentencing 

factor for the death penalty or a life without parole sentence. See IND. CODE 35-

50-2-9. In Highbaugh’s direct appeal, the Indiana Supreme Court found that 

there was sufficient evidence set forth in Highbaugh’s sentencing hearing to 

support this statutory aggravating factor and Highbaugh’s life without parole

sentence.2

2. Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel

[28] Highbaugh also argues that his appellate counsel was ineffective. To prevail on 

a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a petitioner must 

demonstrate both that his counsel’s performance was deficient and that the 

petitioner was prejudiced by the deficient performance. Mitchell v. State, 946 

N.E.2d 640, 643 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied. Counsel’s performance is 

deficient if it falls below an objective standard of reasonableness based on 

 

1 We note that commission of a robbery or another offense, is an element of felony murder, and this language 

was included in Highbaugh’s felony murder charging information. (Tr. Vol. 1 at 107) (alleging that 

Highbaugh shot Hairston while committing or attempting to commit a robbery). However, the felony 

murder charge was dismissed pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement. 

2 Highbaugh also argues that: (1) his trial counsel was ineffective for allowing the trial court to accept his

guilty plea that was not supported by a factual basis; and (2) his plea was unknowingly, involuntary, and 

unintelligent because counsel failed to tell him that the commission of a robbery was an element of murder 

that the State had to prove. These arguments fail because we have already determined that commission of a 

robbery is not an element of murder. 

We further note that Highbaugh’s cursory allegation that his guilty plea was not voluntary because his 

counsel did not advise him that he could receive an additional one-hundred years beyond the terms of his 

guilty plea. This issue became moot before Highbaugh’s direct appeal was decided when the trial court 

corrected its initial consecutive sentencing order and ordered the attempted murder convictions to run 

concurrently with the life without parole sentence.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1710-PC-2326 | April 24, 2019 Page 15 of 17

prevailing professional norms. Id. To show prejudice, the petitioner must 

establish a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, 

the result of the proceeding would have been different. Id. A reasonable 

probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. 

Id.

[29] The standard of review for a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel 

is the same as for trial counsel. Id. at 644. There are three ways in which 

appellate counsel may be considered ineffective: (1) when counsel’s actions 

deny the defendant his right of appeal; (2) when counsel fails to raise issues that 

should have been raised on appeal; (3) when counsel fails to present claims 

adequately and effectively such that the defendant is in essentially the same 

position after appeal as he would be had counsel waived the issue. Id. To 

establish deficient performance for failing to raise an issue, the petitioner must 

show that the unraised issue was clearly stronger than the issues that were 

raised. Id.

[30] Here, Highbaugh argues that his appellate counsel failed to raise four issues that 

should have been raised in his direct appeal. He first argues that appellate 

counsel was ineffective for failing to argue that the trial court abused its 

discretion when it imposed “an additional hundred (100) years beyond his life 

without parole sentence[.]” (Highbaugh’s Br. at 29). However, appellate 

counsel raised this issue on direct appeal, and the trial court corrected its error 

before the direct appeal was decided. This issue is therefore res judicata. See 

Ben-Yisrayl v. State, 738 N.E.2d 253, 259 (Ind. 2000) (explaining that when an 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1710-PC-2326 | April 24, 2019 Page 16 of 17

appellate court decides an issue on direct appeal, the doctrine of res judicata 

precludes its review in post-conviction proceedings).

[31] Highbaugh also argues that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to 

challenge the denial of Highbaugh’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. 

Highbaugh appears to argue that his refusal to answer Powell’s counsel’s 

questions at the deposition was a breach of the plea agreement that required the 

trial court to vacate his guilty plea. Highbaugh has waived appellate review of 

this argument because his brief, conclusory argument is supported neither by 

citation to authority nor cogent argument. See Smith v. State, 822 N.E.2d 193, 

202-03 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (“Generally, a party waives any issue raised on 

appeal where the party fails to develop a cogent argument or provide adequate 

citation to authority and portions of the record.”), trans. denied. Waiver 

notwithstanding, we find no error. The plea agreement provided that the State 

reserved the right to withdraw from the agreement if Highbaugh failed to 

cooperate in Powell’s prosecution. Nothing in the agreement required the trial 

court to vacate Highbaugh’s guilty plea. Appellate counsel was not ineffective 

for failing to challenge the denial of Highbaugh’s motion to withdraw his guilty 

plea.

3

 

3 Highbaugh also argues that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to argue that the trial court erred in 

holding him in contempt for failure to answer Powell’s counsel’s questions where the terms of the plea

agreement required the trial court to vacate the guilty plea. This argument fails because we have already 

determined that nothing in the plea agreement required the trial court to vacate the plea agreement.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1710-PC-2326 | April 24, 2019 Page 17 of 17

[32] Highbaugh next argues that appellate counsel was ineffective because he failed 

to argue on appeal that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the 

statutory sentencing aggravator of robbery for the purposes of his life without 

parole sentence. However, our review of Highbaugh’s direct appeal reveals that 

appellate counsel raised this issue, and the Indiana Supreme Court concluded 

that there was sufficient evidence to support the aggravator. This issue is 

therefore res judicata. See Ben-Yisrayl, 738 N.E.2d at 259.

[33] Affirmed.

Najam, J., and Crone, J., concur.