Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),

this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as pr ecedent 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 : ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE : RONNIE SMITH GREGORY F. ZOELLER Pendleton, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
ELLEN H. MEIL A ENDER Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana


## IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

RONNIE S MITH, ) ) Appellant

- Petitioner , ) ) vs. ) No. 15A04

- 1108

- PC

- 445 ) STATE OF INDIANA, ) ) Appellee

- Respondent

. )

APPEAL FROM THE DEARBORN CIRCUIT COURT The Honorable James D. Humphrey, Judge Cause No. 15C01

- 0811

- PC

- 4

July 3, 2012

MEMORANDUM DECISION
- NOT FOR PUBLICATION
GARRARD, Senior Judge2

In 2007, Ronnie Smith was convicted of Class B felony conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine and received a twenty

- year sentence. He was acquitted on an additional charge of dealing. The conviction and se ntence were affirmed on appe al. See Smith v. State , No. 15A01

- 0707

- CR

- 336 (Ind. Ct. App. Apr. 14, 2008), aff’d on reh’g , trans. denied

. Smith petitioned for post

- conviction relief, and the State Public Defender appeared on his behalf but withdrew in Apri l 2011. Attorney Douglas Hol l and filed an appearance and a motion for modification of sentence. A hearing was held on the petition for post

conviction relief and the motion for modification of sentence on June 2, 2011. On July 18, 2011, the cour t denied the petition and the motion. Smith now appeals the denial of his petition for post

- conviction relief

. Specifically, he contends that post

- conviction counsel was ineffective by fail ing to call his original trial counsel and appellate counsel as witnesses at the post

- conviction hearing. The standard of review for the assistance of post

- conviction counsel is not the same as that required under Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984). There is no constitutional righ t to counsel for post

- conviction proceedings. All that due process requires in such cases is that counsel appear and represent a petitioner in a procedurally fair setting that resulted in a judgment of the
court. Baum v. State , 533 N.E.2d 1200, 1201 (Ind . 1989); see also Hill v. State , 960 N.E.2d 141 , 145 (Ind. 2012). In Smith’s case that occurred. Counsel filed a motion for modification of sentence, appeared at the hearing, called three witnesses (including Smith), presented3

testimony from them, admitt ed do cumentary evidence, and made an argument to the court on behalf of Smith. The hearing was held after notice in the court room before the regular judge. Smith nonetheless argues that counsel essentially abandoned him b y presenting evidence only on his motion to modify sentence

. We disagree. Counsel appeared at the hearing and made arguments on Smith’s behalf regarding his post

- conviction petition. Moreover, the transcript of the hearing shows that counsel presented evidence in support of his post

- con viction petition

. We conclude that t he requirements of Baum were clearly satisfied. See Graves v. State , 823 N.E.2d 1193, 1197 (Ind. 2005) ( concluding Baum standard satisfied where counsel appeared at hearing, called petitioner as a witness, and submitte d two affidavits). According ly , we affirm the court’s decision denying relief.
Affirmed. RILEY, J., and BARNES, J., concur.