Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PC-142 | September 28, 2018 Page 1 of 8

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

Kevin D. Hamlet

Greencastle, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

J.T. Whitehead

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Kevin D. Hamlet,

Appellant-Petitioner,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Respondent.

September 28, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-PC-142

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable Helen W. Marchal, 

Judge

The Honorable Stanley E. Kroh,

Magistrate

Trial Court Cause No.

49G15-1703-PC-11760

Bradford, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PC-142 | September 28, 2018 Page 2 of 8

Case Summary

[1] On August 4, 2016, Kevin Hamlet pled guilty to Level 6 felony theft and 

subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief (“PCR”). Following an 

evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied Hamlet’s petition. 

Hamlet raises a number of arguments on appeal, which we restate as whether 

the post-conviction court (1) correctly denied his PCR petition and (2) properly 

weighed the evidence. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On June 23, 2016, Hamlet was charged with Class A misdemeanor theft after 

he was caught trying to deprive Walmart of the value of certain containers of 

beer and liquor. The charge was enhanced to a Level 6 felony because of a 

prior conviction. Hamlet pled guilty to the enhanced Level 6 felony charge. 

The trial court subsequently accepted Hamlet’s plea, entered judgment of 

conviction for Level 6 felony theft, and sentenced Hamlet to a two-year term, 

all of which was to be executed in community corrections. Hamlet filed a PCR 

petition on November 15, 2016. Following an evidentiary hearing, the postconviction court denied Hamlet’s PCR petition. 

Discussion and Decision

[3] Hamlet contends that the post-conviction court erred by denying his PCR 

petition, arguing that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance that 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PC-142 | September 28, 2018 Page 3 of 8

rendered his guilty plea involuntary. Hamlet also contends that the postconviction court failed to appropriately credit certain evidence.

I. Standard of Review

[4] “Post-conviction procedures do not afford the petitioner with a super-appeal.” 

Williams v. State, 706 N.E.2d 149, 153 (Ind. 1999). “Instead, they create a 

narrow remedy for subsequent collateral challenges to convictions, challenges 

which must be based on grounds enumerated in the post-conviction rules.” Id. 

A petitioner who has been denied relief appeals from a negative judgment and 

as a result, faces a rigorous standard of review on appeal. Dewitt v. State, 755 

N.E.2d 167, 169 (Ind. 2001); Colliar v. State, 715 N.E.2d 940, 942 (Ind. Ct. App. 

1999), trans. denied. 

[5] Post-conviction proceedings are civil in nature. Stevens v. State, 770 N.E.2d 739, 

745 (Ind. 2002). Therefore, in order to prevail, a petitioner must establish his 

claims by a preponderance of the evidence. Ind. Post-Conviction Rule 1(5); 

Stevens, 770 N.E.2d at 745. When appealing from the denial of a PCR petition, 

a petitioner must convince this court that the evidence, taken as a whole, leads 

unmistakably to a conclusion opposite that reached by the post-conviction 

court. Stevens, 770 N.E.2d at 745. “It is only where the evidence is without 

conflict and leads to but one conclusion, and the post-conviction court has 

reached the opposite conclusion, that its decision will be disturbed as contrary 

to law.” Godby v. State, 809 N.E.2d 480, 482 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied. 

“The post-conviction court is the sole judge of the weight of the evidence and 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PC-142 | September 28, 2018 Page 4 of 8

the credibility of the witnesses.” Fisher v. State, 810 N.E.2d 674, 679 (Ind. 

2004).

II. Denial of Hamlet’s PCR Petition

[6] Hamlet contends that the trial court erred by denying his PCR petition because 

his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance that rendered his guilty plea 

involuntary. “The right to effective counsel is rooted in the Sixth Amendment 

to the United States Constitution.” Taylor v. State, 840 N.E.2d 324, 331 (Ind. 

2006). A successful claim for ineffective assistance of counsel must satisfy two 

components. Reed v. State, 866 N.E.2d 767, 769 (Ind. 2007). Under the first 

prong, the petitioner must establish that counsel’s performance was deficient by 

demonstrating that counsel’s representation “fell below an objective standard of 

reasonableness, committing errors so serious that the defendant did not have 

the ‘counsel’ guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.” Id. (internal quotation 

omitted). We recognize that even the finest, most experienced criminal defense 

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

a client, and therefore, under this prong, we will assume that counsel performed 

adequately and defer to counsel’s strategic and tactical decisions. Smith v. State, 

765 N.E.2d 578, 585 (Ind. 2002). “Isolated mistakes, poor strategy, 

inexperience, and instances of bad judgment do not necessarily render 

representation ineffective.” Id. 

[7] Under the second prong, the petitioner must show that the deficient 

performance resulted in prejudice. Reed, 866 N.E.2d at 769. A petitioner’s 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PC-142 | September 28, 2018 Page 5 of 8

failure to satisfy either prong will cause the ineffective assistance of counsel 

claim to fail. See Williams, 706 N.E.2d at 154. Stated differently, “[a]lthough 

the two parts of the Strickland test are separate inquires, a claim may be 

disposed of on either prong.” Grinstead v. State, 845 N.E.2d 1027, 1031 (Ind. 

2006) (citing Williams, 706 N.E.2d at 154).

[8] “There are two different types of ineffective assistance of counsel claims that 

can be made in regards to guilty pleas: (1) failure to advise the defendant on an 

issue that impairs or overlooks a defense and (2) an incorrect advisement of 

penal consequences.” McCullough v. State, 987 N.E.2d 1173, 1176 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2013). Where, as here, a petitioner raises a claim relating to penal 

consequences, “a petitioner must establish, by objective facts, circumstances 

that support the conclusion that counsel’s errors in advice as to penal 

consequences were material to the decision to plead.” Segura v. State, 749 

N.E.2d 496, 507 (Ind. 2001). “Merely alleging that the petitioner would not 

have pleaded is insufficient.” Id. “Rather, specific facts, in addition to the 

petitioner’s conclusory allegation, must establish an objective reasonable 

probability that competent representation would have caused the petitioner not 

to enter a plea.” Id.

[9] Hamlet argues that his trial counsel provided deficient performance and makes 

the conclusory allegation that he would not have pled guilty but for this 

deficient performance. Review of the record, however, does not support 

Hamlet’s claim that his trial counsel provided deficient performance. Hamlet 

asserts that he only pled guilty after his trial counsel informed him that the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PC-142 | September 28, 2018 Page 6 of 8

deputy prosecutor threatened to seek a habitual-offender enhancement if he 

requested discovery. Trial counsel, however, testified that the deputy 

prosecutor never threatened to file a habitual enhancement and both she and 

the deputy prosecutor knew that Hamlet was not habitual-eligible because he 

was facing an enhanced charge. Trial counsel explained that language in the 

plea agreement referring to the State’s decision not to file a habitual 

enhancement was “surplusage” and was inadvertently included. PCR Tr. p. 27. 

Trial counsel did not remember the trial court making any comment about a 

habitual enhancement beyond reading the term of the plea agreement that the 

State would not seek a habitual enhancement.1 

[10] Trial counsel further indicated that while she had conversations with Hamlet 

about potential outcomes, she never discussed a potential habitual

enhancement, explaining that “[i]t wasn’t appropriate because he wasn’t 

habitual[-]eligible in this case.” PCR Tr. p. 29. Trial counsel remembered 

Hamlet as wishing to resolve the matter quickly because he was facing 

additional criminal penalties in an unrelated matter that was pending in a 

different criminal court. Hamlet never asked trial counsel to conduct discovery 

or indicated that he wished to proceed to trial. Pursuant to what she deemed to 

be Hamlet’s wishes, trial counsel worked to obtain the best plea deal possible 

 

1

 Hamlet also argues that the deputy prosecutor, his trial counsel, and the trial court made comments during 

the guilty plea hearing that renewed and repeated the alleged threat. Hamlet acknowledged during the 

evidentiary hearing that the transcript of the guilty plea hearing is not consistent with his recollection of the 

alleged comments but claims that he believes the transcript is inaccurate. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PC-142 | September 28, 2018 Page 7 of 8

for Hamlet. Trial counsel testified during the post-conviction evidentiary 

hearing that she did not believe that the habitual-offender issue was a factor in 

Hamlet’s decision to plead guilty. 

[11] In denying Hamlet’s PCR petition, the post-conviction court explicitly stated 

that it found trial counsel’s testimony more credible than that of the Petitioner. 

We will not disturb the post-conviction court’s credibility determinations on 

appeal. See Fisher, 810 N.E.2d at 679 (providing that the post-conviction court 

is the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses). The record indicates that 

trial counsel appropriately discussed the potential penalties Hamlet faced and 

worked to resolve the case in accordance with Hamlet’s wishes. Thus, like the 

post-conviction court, we conclude that Hamlet failed to prove that his trial 

counsel rendered deficient performance. Hamlet, therefore has failed to prove 

that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. See Grinstead, 845 N.E.2d 

at 1031 (providing that a claim of ineffective assistance may be disposed of on 

either the deficient performance or prejudice prong).

II. Weight of Evidence

[12] Hamlet also contends that the post-conviction court failed to properly weigh 

evidence relating to the audio recording of the guilty plea hearing.2 On August 

17, 2017, the post-conviction court made an entry on the chronological case 

 

2

 To the extent that Hamlet challenges the trial court’s failure to review recordings of his phone 

conversations with trial counsel prior to the guilty plea hearing, Hamlet failed to provide any such recordings 

to the post-conviction court.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PC-142 | September 28, 2018 Page 8 of 8

summary indicating that the court “has reviewed the audio of the guilty plea 

hearing and will consider same when reviewing the parties[’] proposed findings 

of fact and conclusions of law.” Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 24. Hamlet claims 

“[l]ogic and reason determine that, if the Court heard anything other than what 

Hamlet stated from the beginning, especially alleging a manifest injustice, the 

Court would have clearly stated it then during its entry when there was no need 

to consider anything else.” Appellant’s Br. p. 27 (emphasis omitted). However, 

we believe the more reasonable inference is that given the post-conviction 

court’s conclusion that Hamlet was not entitled to relief, the audio recording of 

the guilty plea hearing did not support Hamlet’s recollection of the statements 

allegedly made during the hearing. Again, the post-conviction court is the sole 

judge of the weight of the evidence. Fisher, 810 N.E.2d at 679. Hamlet’s claim 

effectively amounts to a request that this court reweigh the evidence, which we 

will not do. See Wilkerson v. State, 728 N.E.2d 239, 243 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) 

(providing that we will neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of 

the witnesses on appeal).

[13] The judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.

Bailey, J., and Mathias, J., concur.