Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Opinion 71A03-1409-PC-334 | September 15, 2015 Page 1 of 13

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

Bill Snider

Michigan City, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

James B. Martin

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Bill Snider,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

September 15, 2015

Court of Appeals Cause No.

71A03-1409-PC-334

Appeal from the St. Joseph Superior 

Court

The Honorable Jerome Frese, Judge

Cause No. 71D02-0511-PC-42

Riley, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Opinion 71A03-1409-PC-334 | September 15, 2015 Page 2 of 13

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

[1] Appellant-Defendant, Bill Snider (Snider), appeals the post-conviction court’s 

denial of his amended petition for post-conviction relief.

[2] We affirm.

ISSUE

[3] Snider raises one issue on appeal, which we restate as: Whether the postconviction court erred in denying his petition.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

[4] In 2001, Snider was renting a room in J.K.’s three bedroom house in South 

Bend, Indiana. J.K. also rented out a room to F.L. and F.L.’s minor daughter 

B.A., born on July 19, 1989. During that time, J.K. resided with her daughter, 

M.W., and M.W.’s minor daughter, M.C., born on September 2, 1987. The 

record shows that M.W. and M.C. moved out of J.K.’s house but would 

frequently visit. For the times that M.C. was at J.K.’s house for a visit, she 

would spend time with B.A., and they became friends. 

[5] According to M.W, in the spring of 2001, whenever she and M.C. visited J.K.

in her Sound Bend home, she observed B.A. spending a significant amount of 

time in Snider’s room, both with the door open and closed. M.C. would often 

join B.A. and Snider in the room, but M.W. made sure the door was open at all 

times. In the summer of 2001, B.A.’s and M.C.’s relationship with Snider 

became sexual. Snider kissed B.A. and he also began touching her breasts and 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Opinion 71A03-1409-PC-334 | September 15, 2015 Page 3 of 13

vagina, both over and under her clothes. Snider also performed oral sex on 

B.A., and B.A. discovered that Snider was not circumcised. These events partly 

occurred in Snider’s room, and in R.M.’s—Snider’s girlfriend—apartment in 

Mishawaka, Indiana. M.C. was often present when these events occurred. On 

one afternoon in his room at J.K.’s house, Snider performed oral sex on M.C. 

in front of B.A. In addition, M.C. performed oral sex on Snider after watching 

Snider perform oral sex on B.A. M.C. also fondled Snider’s penis until he 

ejaculated. When B.A. left the room, Snider threatened to kill M.C. if she 

disclosed to anyone what had transpired. 

[6] After a 4th of July party at R.M.’s apartment, R.M. observed Snider kiss B.A.

and also slap B.A. on her buttocks. R.M. informed Snider that she had seen 

him, and she reprimanded him for his inappropriate conduct with B.A. Snider 

responded by stating that it had been ongoing. On another occasion that 

summer, B.A. and M.C. went to R.M.’s apartment. R.M., at Snider’s directive,

instructed B.A. and M.C. to put on lingerie. Once the girls were dressed, 

Snider performed oral sex on B.A. Snider then asked R.M. to perform oral sex 

on him, which she did. Snider also performed oral sex on M.C. Snider then 

asked B.A. to have intercourse, but B.A. refused. At some point, M.C. became 

uncomfortable and she tried calling for a ride home. Both Snider and R.M. 

seized the phone from M.C. and hid it. M.C. spent the night at R.M.’s 

apartment. 

[7] In the fall of 2001, B.A. moved to Elkhart, Indiana but soon returned to South 

Bend and her sexual relationship with Snider resumed. Snider continued to 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Opinion 71A03-1409-PC-334 | September 15, 2015 Page 4 of 13

engage in oral sex with B.A. and Snider promised B.A. that he was going to 

marry her. In April of 2002, B.A. confided in F.L. about being molested by 

Snider. As a concerned mother, F.L. called M.W. and advised her to talk to 

M.C. When M.W. questioned M.C., M.C. began crying and said, “I don’t 

want to tell you.” (Transcript p. 481). The following day, M.W. contacted the 

police. 

[8] On May 8, 2002, the State filed an Information charging Snider with one Count 

of child molesting, a Class C felony on B.A., two Counts of child molesting, 

Class A felonies on B.A, and one Count of child molesting, a Class A felony on 

M.C. Snider’s first jury trial commenced on October 13, 2003, but it resulted in 

a hung jury. A subsequent jury trial was held on March 26-30, 2004, after 

which the jury found Snider guilty as charged. On May 11, 2004, the trial court 

sentenced Snider to four years on the Class C felony charge, and thirty years 

each for the three Class A felonies all to run concurrently to the Class C felony. 

Nonetheless, the trial court ordered that one of the thirty-year sentence for the

Class A felony offense to run consecutive to the rest. Snider’s aggregate 

sentence was sixty years. 

[9] In direct appeal, Snider v State 71A05-0409-CR-523 (Ind. Ct. App. Feb. 15, 

2005), Snider contended that: (1) there was insufficient evidence to convict him 

on all charges since the State had failed to present evidence that B.A. was under 

fourteen years of age; and (2) there was insufficient evidence to convict him on 

all molesting charges since M.C.’s testimony was inherently improbable. On 

the first issue, we found that the State had established during trial that B.A. was 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Opinion 71A03-1409-PC-334 | September 15, 2015 Page 5 of 13

thirteen years old when all the molestations took place. As for the second issue, 

we found that M.C.’s testimony was corroborated by B.A.’s testimony. 

Therefore, we affirmed Snider’s convictions. 

[10] On November 7, 2005, Snider filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief 

(PCR Petition) and a State public defender was appointed. On December 1, 

2005, the State public defender entered an appearance for Snider, and on 

December 16, 2005, he moved for a change of judge and filed a Verified Notice 

of Present Inability to Investigate. On February 2, 2006, based on the motion, 

the post-conviction court continued the proceeding pending a Certificate of 

Readiness from the public defender. On September 17, 2008, the postconviction court accepted the public defender’s withdrawal from the case. On 

November 21, 2008, Snider entered an appearance on his own behalf. The 

following year, in February 2009, the post-conviction court directed Snider to 

advise it whether he was proceeding with his pro se PCR Petition. On March 9, 

2010, Snider filed a motion to amend his PCR Petition, and the State filed its 

response.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Opinion 71A03-1409-PC-334 | September 15, 2015 Page 6 of 13

[11] On February 13, 2014, the post-conviction court held an evidentiary hearing on 

Snider’s amended PCR Petition.1

 At the close of the hearing, the postconviction court ordered the State to file its response. On August 14, 2014, the 

post-conviction court issued its findings of fact and conclusion thereon denying 

Snider’s amended PCR Petition. 

[12] Snider now appeals. Additional information will be provided as necessary. 

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

I. Standard of Review

[13] Snider presents several arguments challenging the trial court’s denial of his PCR 

petition. In a post-conviction proceeding, the petitioner must establish the 

grounds for relief by a preponderance of the evidence. Ind. Post-Conviction

Rule 1(5); Overstreet v. State, 877 N.E.2d 144, 151 (Ind. 2007). When 

challenging the denial of post-conviction relief, the petitioner appeals a negative 

judgment. Overstreet, 877 N.E.2d at 151. To prevail, the petitioner must show 

that the evidence leads unerringly and unmistakably to a decision opposite that 

reached by the post-conviction court. Id. We will disturb the post-conviction 

 

1 In his Appendix, Snider included his amended PCR Petition, the State’s response, and the Order denying 

his petition. The transcript of the evidentiary hearing is not before us because it was not requested in the 

Notice of Appeal. See Ind. Appellate Rule 9(F)(4).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Opinion 71A03-1409-PC-334 | September 15, 2015 Page 7 of 13

court’s decision only where the evidence is without conflict and leads to but one 

conclusion and the post-conviction court reached the opposite conclusion. 

Henley v. State, 881 N.E.2d 639 (Ind. 2008).

[14] Where the post-conviction court enters findings of fact and conclusions of law, 

as in the instant case, we do not defer to the post-conviction court’s legal 

conclusions; the post-conviction court’s findings and judgment will be reversed, 

however, only upon a showing of clear error that leaves us with a definite and 

firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Overstreet, 877 N.E.2d at 151. 

[15] We begin by noting that Snider presented several free-standing claims in his 

amended PCR Petition. Specifically, Snider set forth free-standing claims to the 

effect that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by: (1) misrepresenting facts in 

order to obtain an arrest warrant; (2) eliciting false testimony from the State’s 

witnesses; and (3) violating a separation order since the State witnesses sat 

together during recess. Complaints that something went awry at trial are 

generally cognizable only when they show deprivation of the right to effective 

counsel or issues demonstrably unavailable at the time of trial or direct appeal. 

Sanders v. State, 765 N.E.2d 591, 592 (Ind. 2002). Snider makes no attempt to 

demonstrate that any of the above issues were unavailable to him at his trial or 

during his direct appeal. And insofar as those issues are not framed in the 

context of ineffective assistance of counsel, but instead are “free standing 

claim[s] of fundamental error,” they are not available for our review of the postconviction court’s order. Lindsey v. State, 888 N.E.2d 319, 322 (Ind. Ct. App. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Opinion 71A03-1409-PC-334 | September 15, 2015 Page 8 of 13

2008) (internal quotation marks omitted), trans. denied. Accordingly, Snider has 

waived each of those issues, and we will not review them. See id. at 325.

[16] As for Snider’s freestanding issue of prosecutorial misconduct, we note that this 

is not available on post-conviction relief. We therefore proceed to address his 

ineffective assistance of counsel claims only. 

II. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

[17] The standard by which we review claims of ineffective assistance of counsel is 

well established. In order to prevail on a claim of this nature, a defendant must 

satisfy a two-pronged test, showing that: (1) his counsel’s performance fell 

below an objective standard of reasonableness based on prevailing professional 

norms; and (2) there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the 

result of the proceeding would have been different. Johnson v. State, 832 N.E.2d 

985, 996 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 

690, 694 (1984), reh’g denied, trans. denied. The two prongs of the Strickland test 

are separate and independent inquiries. Johnson, 832 N.E.2d at 996. Thus, “[i]f 

it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of 

sufficient prejudice . . . that course should be followed.” Timberlake v. State, 753 

N.E.2d 591, 603 (Ind. 2001) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697), reh’g denied; 

cert. denied, 537 U.S. 839 (2002). 

[18] Counsel is afforded considerable discretion in choosing strategy and tactics and 

we will accord those decisions deference. Id. A strong presumption arises that 

counsel rendered adequate assistance and made all significant decisions in the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Opinion 71A03-1409-PC-334 | September 15, 2015 Page 9 of 13

exercise of reasonable professional judgment. Id. The Strickland Court 

recognized that even the finest, most experienced criminal defense attorneys 

may not agree on the ideal strategy or the most effective way to represent a 

client. Id. Isolated mistakes, poor strategy, inexperience, and instances of bad 

judgment do not necessarily render representation ineffective. Id. Furthermore, 

we will not speculate as to what may or may not have been advantageous trial 

strategy as counsel should be given deference in choosing a trial strategy which, 

at the time and under the circumstances, seems best. Johnson, 832 N.E.2d at 

997.

[19] Here, Snider reiterates the issues raised in his amended PCR Petition where he 

argues that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel since his counsel: 

(1) failed to point out B.A.’s age at his trial; (2) failed to call witnesses; (3) failed

to highlight inconsistencies in the State’s witness’s testimonies; (4) failed to 

investigate; and (5) made prejudicial statements during the closing arguments. 

With respect to appellate counsel, Snider argues that counsel was ineffective for 

failing to raise the issue on B.A.’s age in his direct appeal. Notwithstanding 

Snider’s numerous claims of his trial and appellate counsel’s ineffectiveness, 

notably, the Order issued by the post-conviction court on August 14, 2014, 

addresses a single issue—whether trial and appellate counsel were ineffective 

for failing to present or contend B.A.’s age during Snider’s trial. 

[20] Indiana Appellate Rule 9(F)(4) provides:

The Notice of Appeal shall designate all portions of the Transcript 

necessary to present fairly and decide the issues on appeal. If the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Opinion 71A03-1409-PC-334 | September 15, 2015 Page 10 of 13

appellant intends to urge on appeal that a finding of fact or conclusion 

thereon is unsupported by the evidence or is contrary to the evidence, 

the Notice of Appeal shall request a Transcript of all the evidence. In 

Criminal Appeals, the Notice of Appeal must request the Transcript of 

the entire trial or evidentiary hearing, unless the party intends to limit 

the appeal to an issue requiring no Transcript.

[21] Our Supreme Court has held that, “[a]though not fatal to an appeal, failure to 

include a transcript works a waiver of any specifications of error which depend 

upon the evidence.” In re Walker, 665 N.E.2d 586, 588 (Ind. 1996) (quoting 

Campbell v. Criterion Group, 605 N.E.2d 150, 160 (Ind. 1992), and discussing 

prior appellate rules). While we may address issues on appeal that do not 

challenge the trial court’s findings of fact, any arguments that depend upon the 

evidence presented at trial are waived. Fields v. Conforti, 868 N.E.2d 507, 511 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2007). As we stated above, the Order addresses a single issue. 

Presumably, all the above issues were heard or not, at Snider’s evidentiary 

hearing; yet, Snider specifically did not request the transcript. Under the 

circumstances, we are unwilling to address other issues raised in Snider’s 

amended PCR Petition that went unaddressed in the Order. Snider, as the 

appellant, had the responsibility to support his claim by presenting a sufficient 

record so that this court may conduct an intelligent review of the issues. Since 

Snider did not provide us with his evidentiary transcript, our review is entirely 

limited to the finding of facts and conclusions reached in the Order. 

A. Trial Counsel 

[22] Turning to Snider’s first issue concerning whether trial counsel rendered 

ineffective assistance when counsel failed to argue B.A.’s age at trial, during 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Opinion 71A03-1409-PC-334 | September 15, 2015 Page 11 of 13

trial, the State presented evidence that B.A. was born on September 2, 1987, 

and that she was thirteen years old when Snider molested her. The charging 

Information indicated that the Class C felony of child molesting took place on 

or between the 1st day of January and 1st day of March 2001. B.A. testified 

during trial that in the spring of 2001, Snider touched her breast and vagina, 

both over and under her clothes. As for the two Class A felonies of child 

molesting on B.A., the charging Information stated that it occurred on or 

between the 1st day of June and 1st day of September, 2001. The record shows 

that in the summer, Snider engaged in oral sex with B.A. On another occasion 

that summer, B.A. and M.C. went to R.M.’s apartment where B.A performed 

oral sex on Snider, and M.C. performed oral sex on Snider after watching 

Snider perform oral sex on B.A. In addition, B.A. testified that she was thirteen 

years old. In light of the foregoing, it is clear that at all times, B.A. was thirteen

years old when Snider molested her. As such, Snider has not shown that he 

was prejudiced by his trial counsel’s failure to present or argue B.A.’s age 

during his trial.

B. Appellate Counsel 

[23] “As for appellate counsel, ineffective assistance claims ‘generally fall into three 

basic categories: (1) denial of access to an appeal, (2) waiver of issues, and (3) 

failure to present issues well.”’ Garrett v. State, 992 N.E.2d 710, 724 (Ind. 2013) 

(quoting Reed v. State, 856 N.E.2d 1189, 1195 (Ind. 2006) trans. denied). 

[24] “To show that counsel was ineffective for failing to raise an issue on appeal, the 

defendant must overcome the strongest presumption of adequate assistance, 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Opinion 71A03-1409-PC-334 | September 15, 2015 Page 12 of 13

and judicial scrutiny is highly deferential.” Manzano v. State, 12 N.E.3d 321, 

329 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (citing Reed, 856 N.E.2d at 1195). Furthermore,

[t]o evaluate the performance prong when counsel failed to raise issues 

upon appeal, we apply the following test: (1) whether the unraised 

issues are significant and obvious from the face of the record and (2) 

whether the unraised issues are “clearly stronger” than the raised 

issues. If the analysis under this test demonstrates deficient 

performance, then we examine whether “the issues which . . . 

appellate counsel failed to raise, would have been clearly more likely 

to result in reversal or an order for a new trial.” Ineffective assistance 

is very rarely found in cases where a defendant asserts that appellate 

counsel failed to raise an issue on direct appeal because the decision of 

what issues to raise is one of the most important strategic decisions to 

be made by appellate counsel.

Id. at 329-30. (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, Snider argues that his 

appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance because he failed to argue in 

the direct appeal that B.A.’s age was not established during his trial. As 

discussed above, at all times, B.A. was thirteen years old when she was 

molested. Even if appellate counsel presented that issue on appeal, it would not 

have been the stronger issue. See Bieghler, 690 N.E.2d at 194. As such, we find 

that Snider has not demonstrated that but for his appellate counsel’s alleged 

error, there is a reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would 

have been different. See McCary v. State, 761 N.E.2d 389, 392 (Ind. 2002) 

(holding that a petitioner must show a reasonable probability that but for 

counsel’s errors the result of the proceeding would have been different). In light 

of the foregoing, we find that Snider has failed to show that his appellate 

counsel’s performance was deficient or that he was prejudiced as a result of 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Opinion 71A03-1409-PC-334 | September 15, 2015 Page 13 of 13

counsel’s performance, thus defeating his claim of ineffective assistance of 

counsel.

CONCLUSION 

[25] In conclusion, we find that Snider did not establish ineffective assistance of trial 

and appellate counsel. 

[26] Affirmed. 

[27] Bailey, J. and Barnes, J. concur