Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PC-1824 | June 3, 2020 Page 1 of 14

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

Jennings Daugherty

Carlisle, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE

Ellen H. Meilaender

Supervising Deputy Attorney 

General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Jennings Daugherty,

Appellant-Petitioner,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Respondent

June 3, 2020

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-PC-1824

Appeal from the 

Wayne Superior Court

The Honorable 

Gregory A. Horn, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

89D02-1311-PC-26

Vaidik, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PC-1824 | June 3, 2020 Page 2 of 14

Case Summary

[1] Jennings Daugherty appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. 

We affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History

[2] The main issues in this appeal concern whether a warrant to search Daugherty’s 

house, 1106 Butler Street in Richmond, was supported by probable cause. A 

sergeant with the Richmond Police Department prepared a probable-cause 

affidavit on April 14, 2006. The affidavit contains numerous allegations to 

support the issuance of the search warrant. We break down these allegations 

into five categories: 

(1) Daugherty’s November 2004 arrest:

On 11-27-04 the affiant arrested Jennings Daugherty for 

operating while intoxicated. During a subsequent search incident 

to arrest[,] a [m]arijuana cigarette was located. Mr. Daugherty 

was additionally charged with Possession of Marijuana. 

Daugherty v. State, 957 N.E.2d 676, 677 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).

(2) December 2005 search of 1106 Butler Street:

On December 8th, 2005, the affiant helped serve a [s]earch 

warrant at 1106 Butler as a member of the Richmond SWAT 

team[ ] following an investigation by [o]fficers of the Richmond 

Police Department.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PC-1824 | June 3, 2020 Page 3 of 14

* * * * *

While serving the [December 2005] warrant the affiant assisted in 

the recovery of several plants that the affiant recognized as 

[m]arijuana, paraphernalia used for the sale and consumption of 

[m]arijuana, and [c]ocaine. Officers also recovered two handguns 

and two [a]ssault [r]ifles with approximately one[-]thousand 

rounds of ammunition.

Id. at 677, 678.

(3) Neighbors’ statements to police about “considerable traffic” at

1106 Butler Street:

On 4-5-06 the affiant spoke with neighbors, one house to the 

north of 1106 Butler Street. The neighbors advised that there has 

been considerable traffic to the rear of 1106 Butler Street with 

people entering the property at the rear through the gate of the 

privacy fence. The neighbors also advised that the people usually 

arrive and leave after a few minutes. They advised that the traffic 

usually increase[s] heavily after dark, usually after 9:00 P.M. This 

neighbor advised that this traffic is similar in volume to the time 

just before the [SWAT] Team [r]aided the house in December. 

The neighbor also advised that the resident[ ] he identified as 

Jennings Daugherty[ ] now has his trash picked up by a [b]rown 

older model Chevrolet pickup truck instead of leaving it out for 

the Sanitation Department trucks. He advised that Mr. 

Daugherty has been doing this since the SWAT Team [r]aided 

his house. The neighbor advised that Daugherty has installed 

new cameras on the rear of his house since the last [r]aid.

As the affiant was leaving the alley he was approached by 

another neighbor who[ ] advised there has been considerable 

traffic to the house the affiant was just behind (1106 Butler). He 

advised that he sees cars park on NW J Street, and people go into 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PC-1824 | June 3, 2020 Page 4 of 14

the house for a short amount of time. Names of [b]oth residents 

can be provided upon request.

Id. at 677.

(4) Police officers’ personal observations on April 14, 2006, of 

incident underlying this appeal:

On 4-14-06[,] Captain Shake was patrolling in the alley behind 

1106 Butler Street when he observed a blue Chevrolet pickup 

truck behind the residence. Captain Shake parked on NW L 

Street and watched the truck. Captain Shake observed a white 

male leave from behind the fence at the rear of 1106 Butler and 

approach the pickup. Captain Shake observed the male lift the 

hood of the truck and appear to work in the engine 

compartment....

As Captain Shake was sitting on the lot of NW L Street with 

Officers Sutton and Longnecker (who were in the same unit), 

they observed the truck leave the lot of the Petro Gas Station on 

NW 5th Street. Officers Sutton and Longnecker began to follow 

the truck. Officer[ ] Sutton advised that he observed that the truck 

had a loud exhaust in violation of state law. The officers ran the 

license information from the registration from the plate. Officers 

observed a previous conviction for possession of [c]ocaine for 

William K. Smith on his driving record.

At approximately 12:25 P.M. Officers Sutton and Longnecker 

performed a traffic stop on said truck at NW 14th and Holsapple 

Road.... The truck was found to be registered to William K. 

Smith at 2712 C Ave., New Castle, Indiana.

Officer Sutton performed a routine traffic investigation, which 

included verification of the exhaust violation and license status. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PC-1824 | June 3, 2020 Page 5 of 14

While Officer Sutton was in this process Captain Shake spoke 

with Detective Cantrell of the Henry County Drug Task Force. 

Detective Cantrell advised that he is familiar with William K. 

Smith and an association with drugs. Captain Shake also 

observed that William K. Smith had a previous conviction for 

Possession of Cocaine on his driving record.

Officer Sutton concluded his traffic investigation and gave Smith 

the paperwork for the truck. As he did so Officer Sutton advised 

William K. Smith that he would like to continue to talk to him 

about another issue[;] however [,] Officer Sutton restated that it 

was consensual and that Smith was [f]ree to leave. Officer Sutton 

advised that William Smith was agreeable to that. At that point 

Officer Longnecker approached Sutton and advised him of the 

previously mentioned information that Captain Shake 

discovered.

Officer Sutton then ... asked Mr. Smith to step from the vehicle 

for a search of his person. As Mr. Smith was doing this, Officer 

Sutton asked for consent to search the vehicle and advised him 

that he could refuse. Officer Sutton advised that William K. 

Smith gave him verbal consent to search the vehicle in the 

presence of Officer Longnecker.

During the search of Mr. Smith’s person Officer Sutton found 

$500.00 in cash in his right front pocket and $326.00 in cash in 

his left front pocket.

Mr. Smith stood between Officer Sutton’s unit and his vehicle as 

Officer Longnecker and Captain Shake search[ed] the vehicle. 

Captain Shake searched the engine compartment where he had 

observed William K. Smith earlier working. Captain Shake 

removed the wing nut from an aftermarket air breather on the 

carburetor. There Captain [S]hake located a white and blue 

pharmacy bag. In the bag Captain [S]hake located a plastic 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PC-1824 | June 3, 2020 Page 6 of 14

container similar to a film canister containing several pills and a 

clear plastic baggie containing several pills that was tied off. 

There was also a clear plastic baggie containing an off[-]white 

powder. In a subsequent taped statement William K. Smith 

advised that he placed the items in the air intake breather because 

he had observed Captain Shake watching him. Officer Sutton 

advised that this is a common place to transport illegal narcotics 

based on his Police Highway Interdiction Training.

Officer Longnecker contacted Reid Pharmacy and found that the 

pills in the plastic container contained [sic] [sixty-four] (64) 40-

[m]illigram Oxycontin tablets and the baggie contained [seventy] 

(70) 80-[m]illigram Oxycontin tablets and a Schedule II 

Controlled Substance. The off[-]white powder tested positive for 

cocaine in a Cobalt Reagent fi[el]d tester. Later the powder 

weighed approximately 14 grams at Richmond Police 

headquarters.

Id. at 678-79.

(5) William K. Smith’s statements to police about the April 14, 2006 

incident:

William K. Smith was questioned by [O]fficer Sutton about the 

Oxycontin and [c]ocaine and made several penal statements 

against his self-interest at Richmond Police Headquarters. Mr. 

Smith advised that he had purchased the Oxycontin in 

Indianapolis and had purchased the [c]ocaine from a male he 

knew as “Will.” I know from the service of the previous search 

warrant at 1106 Butler Street that Jennings Daugherty goes by 

the nickname of “Will.” Mr. Smith could not remember [s]treet 

names initially but was able to direct Officer Sutton to the house 

as Officer Sutton wrote out a map of the area. As they were going 

through the process, Mr. Smith was able to remember that the 

house was on Butler Street.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PC-1824 | June 3, 2020 Page 7 of 14

Mr. Smith described the house as a tan house with a privacy 

fence in the rear. Mr. Smith described the interior of the house.... 

The affiant recognizes the description as the interior of 1106 

Butler Street based on his previous entry into that address....

In a taped [s]tatement Mr. Smith advised that he has purchased 

[c]ocaine from that same individual at that residence three times 

in the last thirty days. Mr. Smith advised that he enters through 

the gate in the natural wood privacy fence at the rear of the 

residence. Mr. Smith stated that he enters the rear door of the 

kitchen. He described the living room being off to the right 

through an arch. Mr. Smith advised that “Will” goes up the 

stairs, which are next to the two rooms to the left, and gets 

[c]ocaine for the transaction. [T]his is consistent with what the 

affiant has observed of the interior of 1106 Butler Street.

In a search incident to arrest officers located another large 

amount of cash in Mr. Smith’s wallet. Officer Sutton found 

$600.00 folded in one pocket. He found $500.00 folded in 

another pocket of the wallet. There was $335.00 in cash found in 

the traditional money slot of the wallet. Officer Longnecker 

overheard Mr. Smith say that he only makes $11,000.00 a year.

Id. at 679.

[3] The trial court granted the sergeant’s request for a search warrant, and 

Daugherty’s house was searched the next day, April 15, 2006. Police officers 

discovered five separate packages of cocaine, digital scales, several plastic 

baggies, and other indications that Daugherty was running a “notable” drug 

operation from his house. Id. at 680.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PC-1824 | June 3, 2020 Page 8 of 14

[4] The next day, the State charged Daugherty with Class B felony possession of 

cocaine and Class D felony maintaining a common nuisance.1The State also 

alleged that Daugherty was a habitual offender. In January 2009, Daugherty 

filed a motion to suppress the evidence found during the search of his house,

arguing that the search warrant was not supported by probable cause. See

Appellant’s Direct Appeal App. pp. 94-104. The trial court denied Daugherty’s 

motion to suppress. At the jury trial, Daugherty renewed his objection to the 

admission of the evidence found during the search of his house, which the trial 

court overruled. The jury found Daugherty guilty of both counts and also found 

him to be a habitual offender. The trial court sentenced him to an aggregate 

term of twenty-four-and-a-half years.

[5] On direct appeal, Daugherty challenged the admission of evidence found 

during the search of his house. He argued that the search warrant was not 

supported by probable cause and challenged three parts of the affidavit: (1) the 

December 2005 search of his house; (2) the neighbors’ statements to police 

about “considerable traffic” at his house; and (3) Smith’s statements to police 

about the April 14, 2006 incident. Daugherty, 957 N.E.2d at 681. We held that 

even if these parts were excluded from the affidavit, the police officers’ personal 

observations of Smith on April 14, 2006—alone—supported the issuance of the 

search warrant: 

1 The State also charged Daugherty with Class A felony dealing cocaine, but it later dismissed that count 

because the cocaine used to support that charge was inadvertently destroyed.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PC-1824 | June 3, 2020 Page 9 of 14

On April 14, 2006, officers witnessed Smith exit Daugherty’s 

home. The officers then observed Smith access the engine 

compartment of his truck, a location which they knew to be 

consistent with the hidden transportation of contraband. While 

still under observation, Smith drove to a nearby gas station, 

where the officers initiated a traffic stop. During the course of 

that traffic stop, officers searched the engine compartment of 

Smith’s vehicle—which they had just witnessed him access at 

Daugherty’s residence—wherein they discovered contraband. 

For good measure, the officers also discovered more than $800 in 

cash in Smith's pockets and another $1435 in cash in Smith’s 

wallet. Based on those unchallenged observations alone, the 

“common-sense” conclusion by the issuing magistrate was that 

there existed a “fair probability that contraband or evidence of a 

crime” would be found at Daugherty’s residence. As such, 

sufficient probable cause supported the issuance of the search 

warrant, and we affirm the trial court’s denial of Daugherty’s 

attempts to have the evidence excluded.

Id. (emphasis added). Accordingly, we affirmed Daugherty’s convictions.

[6] In 2015, Daugherty filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief, which he 

amended in 2018, raising claims of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate 

counsel. At the August 2018 evidentiary hearing, Daugherty’s trial and 

appellate counsel testified. In addition, Daugherty identified several exhibits, 

but he never asked the post-conviction court to admit them. Accordingly, they 

were not admitted. 

[7] In February 2019, while his petition was still pending, Daugherty asked the 

post-conviction court to correct some “omissions” in the transcript of his 

evidentiary hearing. Appellant’s P-C App. Vol. III p. 71. The post-conviction 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PC-1824 | June 3, 2020 Page 10 of 14

court listened to the recording and corrected some “typographical errors” but 

otherwise found that the transcript “fully and accurately transcribed the 

testimony as presented.” Id. at 73. In July 2019, the post-conviction court 

entered an order denying Daugherty relief. 

[8] Thereafter, Daugherty, pro se, filed a notice of appeal. He asked the postconviction court for a copy of the electronic recording of his evidentiary 

hearing; however, the court, noting that it had already listened to the recording 

and made some minor corrections to the transcript, found that there was “no 

just or reasonable reason to replace the transcript with a copy of the electronic 

recording” and denied Daugherty’s request. Id. at 75. In September 2019, 

Daugherty asked this Court to correct the transcript of his evidentiary hearing 

or order the post-conviction court to provide him a copy of the electronic 

recording, but we denied his request. See Order, No. 19A-PC-1824 (Ind. Ct. 

App. Sept. 11, 2019). In February 2020, Daugherty again asked this Court to 

correct the transcript of his evidentiary hearing or allow him to purchase a 

recording of the hearing, and we again denied his request. See Order, No. 19APC-1824 (Ind. Ct. App. Mar. 10, 2020). 

Discussion and Decision

[9] Daugherty appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. A 

defendant who files a petition for post-conviction relief has the burden of 

establishing the grounds for relief by a preponderance of the evidence. Hollowell 

v. State, 19 N.E.3d 263, 268-69 (Ind. 2014). If the post-conviction court denies 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PC-1824 | June 3, 2020 Page 11 of 14

relief, and the petitioner appeals, the petitioner must show that the evidence 

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

post-conviction court. Id. at 269.

I. Post-Conviction Court Error

[10] Daugherty contends that the post-conviction court committed two procedural 

errors. First, Daugherty argues that the post-conviction court erred by not 

admitting his exhibits into evidence. We initially note that Daugherty does not 

tell us what exhibits the court should have admitted. However, they appear to 

be records from his previous cases. In any event, Daugherty claims that by not 

admitting the exhibits, the post-conviction court was making “an all out effort” 

to keep this Court from seeing them because then we would know that the trial 

court did not actually have probable cause to issue the search warrant. 

Appellant’s Br. p. 36. There is simply no evidence to prove that the postconviction court had such a plan. Instead, the record reveals that while 

Daugherty identified his exhibits, he never asked the court to admit them. After 

the first witness testified, the court mentioned that none of the exhibits

identified during the testimony had been admitted, but Daugherty didn’t take

the hint. See P-C Tr. p. 36; see also Appellant’s P-C App. Vol. II p. 24 (postconviction-court order: “Daugherty made reference to numerous exhibits 

during the postconviction relief hearing but never offered their admittance into

evidence and none were, ultimately, admitted.”). Moreover, as we explain

more fully below, even assuming that Daugherty’s past cases do not establish 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PC-1824 | June 3, 2020 Page 12 of 14

probable cause to issue the search warrant, there is still sufficient evidence to 

support the issuance of the search warrant. 

[11] Daugherty next argues that the post-conviction court erred “when it left out

relevant parts of the PCR hearing dialogue from the PCR transcripts.” 

Appellant’s Br. p. 36. This issue has been addressed twice by the postconviction court and now three times by this Court. Simply put, Daugherty has 

given us no reason to believe that the transcript was not “fully and accurately 

transcribed,” as found by the post-conviction court. 

II. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel 

[12] Daugherty next contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. 

When evaluating a defendant’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, we apply 

the well-established, two-part test from Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 

(1984). Bobadilla v. State, 117 N.E.3d 1272, 1280 (Ind. 2019). The defendant 

must prove that (1) counsel rendered deficient performance, meaning counsel’s 

representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness as gauged by 

prevailing professional norms, and (2) counsel’s deficient performance 

prejudiced the defendant, i.e., but for counsel’s errors, there is a reasonable 

probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different. Id.

[13] Daugherty first argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to get the 

trial court to disregard four parts of the probable-cause affidavit: (1) his 

November 2004 arrest; (2) the December 2005 search of his house; (3) the 

neighbors’ statements to police about “considerable traffic” at his house; and (4) 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PC-1824 | June 3, 2020 Page 13 of 14

Smith’s statements to police about the April 14, 2006 incident. See Appellant’s 

Br. pp. 18-27. Daugherty, however, cannot establish prejudice. On direct 

appeal, this Court held that even if the other parts of the probable-cause 

affidavit were disregarded, the police observations of Smith alone supported the 

issuance of the search warrant. Daugherty, 957 N.E.2d at 681. Notably, 

Daugherty did not seek rehearing or transfer. Because there was sufficient 

probable cause in the affidavit to support the issuance of the search warrant 

even disregarding the other parts, there is no reasonable probability that the 

motion to suppress would have been granted. Trial counsel was not ineffective 

on this ground. 

[14] Daugherty next argues that his appellate counsel was ineffective for “fail[ing] to

contact [him] or his trial counsel prior to producing the Appellant’s Brief on 

Direct Appeal.” Appellant’s Br. p. 6; see also id. at 16, 41. The record, however, 

does not support this claim. At the post-conviction hearing, appellate counsel 

testified that he was “sure” he talked with trial counsel about possible issues to 

raise on appeal, as was his policy. See P-C Tr. pp. 38-39. Appellate counsel also 

testified that he thought he sent Daugherty a letter in prison, as was his policy, 

and that Daugherty had sent him “a couple of letters” about what issues to raise 

on appeal. Id. at 39. Daugherty has failed to establish that appellate counsel was 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PC-1824 | June 3, 2020 Page 14 of 14

ineffective for failing to consult with him or his trial counsel. We therefore 

affirm the post-conviction court.2 

[15] Affirmed.

May, J., and Robb, J., concur.

2 Daugherty also raises claims of prosecutorial misconduct and “abuse of judicial discretion.” Appellant’s Br. 

p. 42. However, these freestanding issues are not available on post-conviction review. See Martin v. State, 760 

N.E.2d 597, 599 (Ind. 2002).