Opinion ID: 2995368
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Appellate Counsel’s Failure to Raise

Text: Issue of Court’s Ex Parte Interference with Jury Winters next contends that he received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel because his attorney failed toappeal the issue of the bailiff’s ex parte interference with the jury. This claim was rejected by the Indiana courts. Winters argues that the Indiana courts erred in reviewing this claim because they utilized the standard set forth in Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364 (1993), rather than the proper framework set out in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Winters claims that under the Strickland standard, the ineffectiveness of his appellate counsel warrants a reversal of his conviction. We agree that the appropriate standard for evaluating a claim of ineffective counsel is the Strickland standard. Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. at 390-91. Our review of Winters’ petition does not end here, however. Instead, once again, we will review Winters’ claim using the appropriate standard set forth in Strickland. To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a petitioner must prove both deficient performance and prejudice. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687- 88; Mason v. Hanks, 97 F.3d 887, 892 (7th Cir. 1996). Appellate counsel’s performance is deficient if counsel fails to appeal an issue that is both obvious and clearly stronger than one that was raised. Williams v. Parke, 133 F.3d 971, 974 (7th Cir. 1997). It is not necessary, however, that appellate counsel raise every non-frivolous issue under the sun. Mason, 97 F.3d at 893. In addition, a petitioner demonstrates the requisite prejudice only when appellate counsel fails to raise an issue that may have resulted in a reversal of the conviction, or an order for a new trial. Id. In Winters’ case, the court bailiff denied the jury’s first request by writing no on the note. The record does not indicate whether the jury received a response to its second inquiry. Winters argues that appellate counsel was ineffective for not appealing the claim that the bailiff improperly communicated with the jury outside of his presence in violation of his right to be present at all critical stages of the prosecution. Because this ex parte communication claim does not warrant a reversal of conviction or an order for new trial, his appellate counsel was not ineffective and Winters’ argument fails. A defendant has a constitutional right to be present at all critical stages of a prosecution, but this right does not extend to every interaction between the court and the jury. United States v. Gagnon, 470 U.S. 522, 526 (1985). An ex parte communication between court staff and the jury creates a rebuttable presumption of error, but does not constitute per se grounds for reversal. Marsillett v. State, 495 N.E.2d 699, 709 (Ind. 1986). The appellant still carries the burden of proving that the substance of the communication resulted in prejudice. Id. The prohibition against ex parte communication between the court and the jury is designed to prevent the jury from being improperly influenced by the judge. Bouye v. State, 699 N.E.2d 620, 629 (Ind. 1998). When a jury requests additional information or clarification and the request is merely ignored or denied, any inference of improper influence or prejudice is rebutted. Marsillett, 495 N.E.2d at 709. Under these circumstances, any error by the trial court is deemed harmless and there is no basis for setting aside a jury verdict. Pendergrass v. State, 702 N.E.2d 716, 720 (Ind. 1998). In Winters’ case, although the bailiff’s failure to inform the judge of the jury’s inquiries was inappropriate, it was harmless error and does not warrant reversal. Winters has not established that the substance of the bailiff’s first ex parte response was prejudicial to the outcome of the trial. With respect to the jury’s second note, without proof that the bailiff communicated with the jury at all, there is no basis for doubting the reliability of the jury’s verdict. Winters’ appellate counsel did raise two other viable issues on appeal, and the decision to omit the bailiff’s ex parte interference from Winters’ appeal was well within the objective standard of professional norms and did not result in any prejudice. Indeed, the Indiana courts did misapply the Lockhart standard in analyzing Winters’ claim. Nevertheless, our review under the proper standard set forth in Strickland renders the same result. Winters fails to establish circumstances that amount to ineffective assistance of appellate counsel under the Strickland framework. The Indiana courts did not act unreasonably or contrary to established federal law in refusing to reverse or set aside Winters’ conviction.