Opinion ID: 853330
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Was Ben-Yisrayl's Appellate Lawyer Ineffective?

Text: Ben-Yisrayl says his appellate lawyer should have argued that his death sentence violated the U.S. Constitution because literally no evidence supports it. (Appellant's Br. at 23.) This contention refers to the fact that during the penalty phase of Ben-Yisrayl's trial, the State presented no new evidence but specifically asked the jury to consider all the evidence presented to them during the guilt phase, as provided in Ind.Code § 35-50-2-9(d). [2] In his direct appeal, Ben-Yisrayl argued that the State had not offered any evidence of a statutory aggravating circumstance during the penalty phase, and thus had failed to prove the existence of an aggravator beyond a reasonable doubt. See Ind.Code Ann. § 35-50-2-9(a) (West 1993), [3] Ben-Yisrayl, 690 N.E.2d at 1151. We held that the Indiana Code did not require that a prosecutor formally move to incorporate the guilt phase evidence at the penalty phase in order to satisfy the State's burden of proof during the penalty phase and that the evidence was thus before the jury for consideration in recommending for or against death. Ben-Yisrayl, 690 N.E.2d at 1152. Ben-Yisrayl now raises the issue of the State's reliance on guilt phase evidence during the sentencing phase as a federal constitutional claim. [4] He asserts that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to argue on direct appeal that the penalty phase of Ben-Yisrayl's trial violated several of his federal constitutional rights. [5] (Appellant's Br. at 25, citing T.R. at 1477). Each of these contentions flows from his assertion that the State made no request that the guilt-trial evidence be incorporated into the penalty-trial [], (Appellant's Br. at 25), and that his lawyer was deficient for not arguing the point. We held during Ben-Yisrayl's direct appeal that in the penalty phase of trial the jury may consider all the evidence introduced at the trial stage of the proceedings [6] whether the State requested incorporation of the guilt phase evidence into the penalty phase or not. [7] That being the state of Indiana law, his lawyer was not deficient by taking a pass on federal arguments that rest on our law being otherwise.