Opinion ID: 2167655
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: Post-conviction procedures do not afford the petitioner with a super-appeal. 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. Ind.Post-Conviction Rule 1(1); Weatherford v. State, 619 N.E.2d 915 (Ind. 1993). Petitioners bear the burden of establishing their grounds for relief by a preponderance of the evidence. P-C.R. 1(5); Weatherford, 619 N.E.2d at 917. If an issue was known and available but not raised on appeal, it is waived. If it was raised on appeal but decided adversely, it is res judicata. Lowery v. State, 640 N.E.2d 1031 (Ind. 1994), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 992, 116 S.Ct. 525, 133 L.Ed.2d 432 (1995). When one appeals the negative judgment of a post-conviction court, the standard is even more rigorous. Petitioners must show that the evidence as a whole, leads unerringly and unmistakably to a conclusion opposite to that reached by the trial court. Weatherford, 619 N.E.2d at 917.
The right to effective assistance of trial and appellate counsel has been firmly established by the U.S. Supreme Court and by this Court. United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 654, 104 S.Ct. 2039, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984); King v. State, 467 N.E.2d 726, 728-29 (Ind.1984). In his post-conviction petition, Williams listed more than sixty alleged errors to show trial counsel ineffectiveness. [1] The post-conviction court considered Williams' claims and concluded that the allegations fail to establish that counsel's overall performance was deficient as measured by prevailing professional norms and that the petitioner has failed to persuade us that the outcome of the trial or sentencing hearing would have been different but for trial counsel's performance. (P-C.R. at 1317-18.) We analyze claims of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel under the two part test announced in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, one must show both deficient performance and resulting prejudice. A deficient performance is a performance which falls below an objective standard of reasonableness. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (1984); see also Douglas v. State, 663 N.E.2d 1153, 1154 (Ind. 1996). Prejudice exists when a claimant shows there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052; see also Cook v. State, 675 N.E.2d 687, 692 (Ind.1996). [2] Even if the claimant succeeds in showing a reasonable probability the results would have been different, he must also show his conviction was fundamentally unfair or unreliable. Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364, 369, 113 S.Ct. 838, 122 L.Ed.2d 180 (1993). A fair trial has been denied a defendant when his conviction or sentence has resulted from a breakdown in the adversarial process which rendered the result unreliable. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 686, 104 S.Ct. 2052; see also Canaan v. State, 683 N.E.2d 227, 229 (Ind.1997), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 118 S.Ct. 2064, 141 L.Ed.2d 141 (1998). The two prongs of the Strickland test are separate and independent inquiries. 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. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697, 104 S.Ct. 2052. An appellant/petitioner must offer strong and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that counsel prepared and executed an effective defense. Burris v. State, 558 N.E.2d 1067, 1072 (Ind.1990), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 922, 116 S.Ct. 319, 133 L.Ed.2d 221 (1995). On appeal from the post-conviction court, Williams re-asserts his trial counsel were ineffective for the following reasons: (a) counsel failed to conduct a minimally adequate review of discovery materials, (b) failed to advocate sufficiently for a motion for severance, (c) failed to prepare adequately for the penalty phase of trial and the sentencing hearing, (d) failed to investigate the crime scene evidence adequately, and, (e) failed to object to erroneous instructions. We review each of Williams' claims in the following subsections. [3] A. Inadequate Review of Discovery. Williams argues that counsel were ineffective for failing to review fully materials given to them by the State during discovery. Specifically, Williams points to his counsel's failure to realize that a report by State's expert Kimberly Epperson showed that blood found on Williams' shorts was consistent with the blood of either John Rease, Henrietta Rease, or Gregory Rouster. (P-C.R. at 4424; T.R. at 1852-58; T.R. at 1966-67.) He claims that had his counsel known about the blood before trial, they could have revealed to the jury that the evidentiary chain of custody was suspect, [4] hired a serology expert to testify that 45% of all people in Indiana have a blood type which matches that found on the shorts, and hired a blood splatter expert to refute the State's closing argument about the significance of the blood. (Appellant's Br. at 30-41.) Williams believes that these failures fall below an objective standard of reasonable representation. Williams also asserts, as he must to succeed under Strickland, that the blood evidence was determinative regarding his conviction and, alternatively, his sentence. To bolster this contention, Williams relies on comments made by the State in its closing argument, by the trial judge in his findings of fact, and by Williams' trial counsel in post-conviction testimony. (Appellant's Br. at 27, 40, 42-43.) The post-conviction court agreed that counsel's oversight of discovery materials indicating that blood had been found on Williams' shorts was difficult to excuse in light of the significance of the evidence. The court concluded, however, that the outcome of the trial or sentencing hearing was not affected by that oversight and thus that Williams had not shown he was prejudiced by counsel's failure. (P-C.R. at 1321.) The post-conviction court wrote: The petitioner takes the position that trial counsel could have, and should have, obtained the services of expert witnesses who might have established that the blood found on the petitioner's shorts got there through transference from other blood stained evidence or, at least, was not necessarily evidence that he was present at the time the victims were shot. He also argues that the experts would have been able to contradict or mitigate the trial court judge's determination that there was significance in the fact that the blood appeared on the front of the petitioner's garments and on the back of the co-defendant. Once again, we conclude that evidence of who actually fired which shots does not make a difference under the facts of this case. The petitioner joined his codefendant in a double homicide in the perpetration of a robbery. He was an equal partner in the crimes, and his participation in the killingsthe true extent of which may never be knownwas found by the supreme court to justify the death sentence. ( Id. at 1322.) Our review of the evidence presented by Williams and of the trial record leads us to conclude the post-conviction court was correct for two reasons: Williams' counsel did inform the jury of the blood evidence issues Williams raises here, and the evidence available to the judge and jury would have not been significantly different if Williams' counsel had hired expert witnesses. Williams' counsel initiated the adversarial testing process in regard to the blood stain evidence when he addressed the potentially misleading nature of such evidence during his closing argument, saying: The other item that the State emphasized is the blood on the shorts. The State apparently could have, but did not bring... splatter experts.... That analysis could have been done if the State felt it would have assisted them in the case, because we didn't have an expert here that could testify to that. So, absent that, all we have from expert testimony is that that blood could have come from either of the Reases or from Greg Rouster or any millions of other people in the world, not Darnell, which was excluded. (T.R. at 2550.) Additionally, in his rebuttal of Gregory Rouster's closing argument, Williams' counsel pointed out to the jury that they should not rely on the blood patterns found on Williams' shorts, arguing: Mr. Lewis [co-defendant Gregory Rouster's counsel] uses the word splatter the same way the State sought to introduce evidence of splattering. We do not have a splatter witness. We did not hear an expert. We have no testimony from an expert as to what the pattern of blood means on clothing. That simply, using the word splatter, does that make that expert testimony, much less testimony? We have simply been left in the dark on that matter and there's been no evidence presented. (T.R. at 2594-95.) Counsel's arguments were factually supported by the testimony of the State's expert witness on serology, Kimberly Epperson. When asked what she discovered when she analyzed the blood found on Williams' shorts, Epperson said the blood was consistent with the blood of either John Rease, Henrietta Rease or Gregory Rouster.... (T.R. at 1967.) Epperson acknowledged that a blood type match does not indicate that the blood samples derive from the individual in question. She also noted that 45% of the world's population has the O blood type and that Mr. Rease, Mrs. Rease, and Gregory Rouster all had O blood types. Williams' assertion that trial counsel failed to inform the jury of the actual amount of blood found on Williams' shorts is made moot by Epperson's testimony. When Epperson was asked to describe the size and character of the blood spots found on the shorts, she replied: they were small spots of blood ... [a]pproximately less than one centimeter in diameter. (T.R. at 1968.) Counsel's arguments to the jury coupled with the above factual testimony rendered Williams' trial a reliable adversarial testing process. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 686, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Even if Williams' counsel had more thoroughly investigated the blood evidence, as his counsel was able to do for post-conviction, they would have been unable to provide the jury with any information significantly different from that actually provided by the State's witness. Because the evidence Williams argues should have been presented would not have significantly changed the facts available to the judge and jurors, Williams was not prejudiced during either the guilt or sentencing phase of his trial. B. Motion for Severance. On direct appeal, Williams' counsel claimed the trial court erred in failing to grant Williams' motion to sever. We held that the trial court's denial of Williams' pretrial motion for severance was proper as the motion contained no specific allegations of facts to put the trial court on notice of any mutually antagonistic defenses. Rouster, 600 N.E.2d at 1346. We further concluded that because Williams failed to renew his motion at the close of evidence the issue was waived on appeal. Id. (citing Ind.Code § 35-34-1-12(b)). Williams now recasts the issue as a matter of ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendants have no absolute right to a separate trial or severance, but they may ask the trial judge to exercise her discretion to grant such a motion. Lampkins v. State, 682 N.E.2d 1268, 1272 (Ind. 1997), opinion modified on reh'g, 685 N.E.2d 698 (Ind.1997). We will find an abuse of discretion when a court denies a defendant's properly filed motion for separate trials and the parties' defenses are mutually antagonistic and acceptance of one party's defense precludes the acquittal of the other. Lampkins, 682 N.E.2d at 1272 (citing Underwood v. State, 535 N.E.2d 507, 514 (Ind.1989)). A defendant is not, however, entitled to a separate trial merely because a co-defendant implicates that defendant. Lampkins, 682 N.E.2d at 1272. A substantial portion of both Williams' and Rouster's defense theories centered around their respective assertions that the other fired the fatal shots. During the guilt phase, each co-defendant's arguments regarding who pulled the trigger were of little relevance because both were convicted for felony murder under Ind.Code § 35-42-1-1(2). All participants in a robbery or attempted robbery which results in killing by one robber are deemed equally guilty of murder, regardless of which participant actually killed the victim. [5] Rogers v. State, 262 Ind. 315, 320, 315 N.E.2d 707, 709-10 (1974). During the sentencing phase, the evidence against Williams was strong enough to allow the jury to find that any mitigating factors were outweighed by the State's asserted aggravating factors. Additionally, Williams' conduct indicated a reckless indifference to human life. Rouster, 600 N.E.2d at 1350 (citing Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137, 107 S.Ct. 1676, 95 L.Ed.2d 127, (1987)). Williams urged Rouster to rob the Reases by saying, [d]on't let them do you this way and [y]ou know they owe you, (T.R. at 185A), even though originally Rouster had left the home at John Rease's request. Williams and Rouster then re-entered the home. Williams acted in concert with Rouster in robbing the Reases. He told Henrietta to get on the floor and when Henrietta pled with Williams not to hit Mr. Rease because he had a bad heart, Williams replied, [h]is heart is stronger than mine. Rouster, 600 N.E.2d at 1345-46. Rouster then demanded where's the money at? and told Williams to bring both of them back here. Id. at 1346. Whether or not Williams actually pulled the trigger, he knew that the Reases were going to be murdered and he actively participated in the killings. It was Williams who told the Reases, it's your time. Id. Rouster was then heard to say something like waste them. Id. Physical evidence would also have been available against Williams even if a separate trial had been granted. Blood found on Williams' shorts was consistent with the blood of either John Rease, Henrietta Rease, or Gregory Rouster, but not consistent with the blood of Teresa Newsome, Edwin Taylor, or Darnell Williams. (T.R. at 1966-67.) Based on this evidence, Williams' sentence would have been the same even if he had been granted a separate trial. C. Preparation for Penalty Phase. Williams asserts his counsel were ineffective during the penalty phase for failing to present evidence showing his traumatic birth, his hyperactivity, his placement in special education classes, his violent, abusive, criminal, and alcoholic father, his chaotic home, the poverty of his family, and the destitute neighborhood in which he grew up. He also argues his counsel should have presented evidence showing he once saved another person's life. In considering Williams' assertions, the post-conviction court wrote: We do not believe that any of this, or all of it together, would have been found by the jury or the trial court judge to be mitigating circumstances which were not outweighed by the aggravating circumstances of multiple intentional murders in the perpetration of robbery. (P-C.R. at 1326.) The court then concluded that trial counsel's performance was neither deficient nor prejudicial. ( Id. ) Williams provides no evidence which leads us to a result opposite that reached by the post-conviction court. The mitigating factors Williams asserts are entitled to modest mitigating weight, at most, since none directly affect his culpability. Williams specifically attempts to focus our attention on his mental state by arguing that the post-conviction court incorrectly rejected his claims of attention deficit hyperactivity, alcohol intoxication delirium, and borderline IQ. He asserts his counsel should have investigated these issues and presented relevant evidence to the jury. The post-conviction court rejected Williams' factual claims regarding hyperactivity and alcohol intoxication, (P-C.R. at 1323-25), and Williams provides us with no evidence which unerringly contradicts that conclusion. Regarding Williams' IQ claim, even if we assume the claim is factually valid, we have determined that such evidence is only of moderate weight. Holmes v. State, 671 N.E.2d 841, 850 (Ind.1996), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 118 S.Ct. 137, 139 L.Ed.2d 85 (1997). Because of the significant weight of the aggravating factors proven against Williams, there is no reasonable chance that the addition of this mitigator would have garnered a different result for Williams at trial. Williams also argues that his counsel only provided him with a free form sentencing hearing strategy similar to the one we found ineffective in Averhart v. State, 614 N.E.2d 924, 930-31 (Ind.1993). Our review of the record, however, shows that counsel had an adequate sentencing hearing strategy. Counsel elicited from Williams' mother that Darnell was twenty years old and asked her to tell the judge about Darnell's character. She replied that Williams was the type of person who often helped others and that he advised younger teenagers not to drop out of school. Counsel further questioned Williams' mother regarding his employment. She replied that Williams had been working at a convalescent home for close to a year before he was arrested. Counsel also called other witnesses as well and asked questions relating to additional mitigating factors. As such, counsel's advocacy easily surpasses the free-form performance we described in Averhart. D. Inadequate Investigation. Williams says his counsel failed to investigate crime scene evidence adequately. Williams believes that evidence presented by the State inaccurately shows an overturned mattress and the positioning of Mrs. Rease's dead body. He further asserts that this misrepresentation was material since the State used the fact that the Rease's bedroom was ransacked and the mattress was overturned to argue that the robbery of the Rease's was similar to a different robbery allegedly committed by Williams and others about a month before. [6] ( See T.R. at 3118-19.) He asserts that had his counsel adequately investigated, they could have rebutted the State's penalty-phase argument asserting that Williams had a history of prior criminal conduct. Williams' claim is effectively mooted by the fact that the trial judge found that Williams ha[d] no significant history of prior criminal conduct in his sentencing findings of fact. (T.R. at 187A.) In making such a finding, the trial judge necessarily must have decided that the evidence presented by the State regarding Williams' possible participation in the separate robbery was not strong enough to be considered in sentencing. Williams argues the evidence affected the jury's sentence recommendation. As for the crime scene, however, the post-conviction court found that the evidence presented by the petitioner in his attempt to show the body was on the bed or in a position other than that depicted to the jury was not nearly as persuasive as testimony given at the post-conviction hearing which suggested the actual state of the crime scene was properly conveyed by the State's evidence. The court concluded that the evidence given to the jury correctly represented the crime scene. (P-C.R. at 1320.) Williams' present argument does not lead us unerringly and unmistakably to an opposite conclusion. The testimony of Officer Michael Gault, which Williams relies on to argue that photographic evidence was manipulated, actually tends to support the evidence as it was represented to the jury. During the post-conviction hearing, Officer Gault recounted the scene as he remembered it, stating: [w]hen we got to the southeast bedroom, I observed the woman in a position whereas in the old westerns, when they were slung across the horse.... (P-C.R. at 2036-37.) When asked what Mrs. Rease was laying across, Gault answered it could have been a dresser.... I do recall she was at the edge of the dresser. (P-C.R. at 2037-38.) The post-conviction testimony of Officer Rita Dorsey Allen also supports the State's argument that Mrs. Rease was not found on a bed: I recall her beingshe washer dress was up and she was like sideways, against something. (P-C.R. at 2249.) As to the former robbery, there would still be sufficient evidence for the jury to find that Williams had indeed committed the crime upon which the State based its claim that Williams had a significant past criminal history. James Jackson recounted how he had been robbed by several men, and Ronald King, Jackson's neighbor, identified Williams as one of the individuals he saw pop up suddenly from Jackson's home a few minutes before Jackson showed up at King's home bloody from having been beaten by his assailants. This testimony much more strongly links Williams to the robbery of Jackson than does the fact that each victim's home was similarly ransacked and it is not affected by crime scene evidence found in the Rease home. Williams was not prejudiced by his counsel's failure to investigate the crime scene evidence. Williams also claims that a blood splatter expert could have told the jury that the police had contaminated blood evidence, which could have possibly provided evidence exculpatory to Williams. He argues such an expert could have explained to the jury that it was probable that Mr. Rease was shot before Mrs. Rease. He advances no argument, however, regarding how his counsel's failure to hire such an expert caused his trial or sentence to be unreliable. Accordingly, we see no prejudice. E. Instructions. Williams argues his counsel were ineffective for failing to object to certain instructions given by the trial court. The three instruction errors alleged by Williams are: (a) the instructions did not inform the jury they were to weigh each co-defendant's mitigating and aggravating circumstances separately, (b) the jury should have been instructed on what sentencing alternatives were available to the judge if they did not recommend the death penalty, and (c) the instructions failed to inform the jury that if they found Williams was sufficiently intoxicated, this finding would negate the intent requirements inherent in two of the aggravating factors urged by the State.
Williams argues his counsel were ineffective for failing to ask the court to instruct the jury that they were obligated to consider whether the death penalty was appropriate for Williams based solely on his own actions and intent. He argues that without any such instruction the jury could consider evidence entered for or against co-defendant Gregory Rouster to determine his death sentence, thereby violating the Eighth Amendment's requirement of precise and individualized sentencing. (Appellant's Br. at 110 (citing Stringer v. Black, 503 U.S. 222, 232, 112 S.Ct. 1130, 117 L.Ed.2d 367 (1992)).) When a jury or judge sentences an individual to death, the Eighth Amendment requires an individualized determination on the basis of the character of the individual and the circumstances of the crime. Zant v. Stephens, 462 U.S. 862, 879, 103 S.Ct. 2733, 77 L.Ed.2d 235 (1983) (emphasis omitted). In Williams' case, the trial court made it clear to the jury that Williams was to be sentenced on the basis of his individual acts and character by instructing them: The jury may recommend the death penalty be imposed against defendant, Darnell Williams, only if it finds: 1. that the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of one of the aggravating circumstances alleged in the charging information against Darnell Williams, and
(T.R. at 171A.) This instruction specifically directed the jury that mitigating and aggravating factors had to exist for Darnell Williams before they could recommend that Williams be sentenced to death.