Opinion ID: 853498
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Defects in the Charging Information

Text: The defendant contends that the post-conviction court erred in determining that the defendant's conviction and sentence did not violate the United States and Indiana Constitutions due to alleged defects in the charging instrument. The defendant also contends that he was entitled to default judgment on this issue because the State failed to respond to his amended petition in which he raised this claim. Turning first to the default judgment claim, we note that when the State answers a petition for post-conviction relief with legitimate defenses, that answer is deemed to be sufficient to challenge a later petition that raises the same issues of fact as the first. State v. Fair, 450 N.E.2d 66, 69 (Ind.1983). A second or additional answer is unnecessary when the State's initial answer makes it clear that it believes legitimate defenses are available that apply to all of the petitioner's claims for relief. Id. Having raised a general denial and affirmative defenses of laches, waiver, and res judicata, the State provided an answer sufficient to allow the defendant to understand its position. The defendant was not prejudiced by any failure of the State to amend its answer. The post-conviction court did not err in denying the defendant's request for default judgment. Turning to the defendant's specific claim that the charging instrument was defective, the defendant argues that all of the charges against him derive from the class B felony burglary charge, which alleged burglary with intent to confine, not burglary with serious bodily injury. The defendant urges that because the State charged him with class B felony burglary, because this burglary established the entire episode, Brief of Petitioner-Appellant at 51, and because [a]ll of the charged offenses begin with, and extend from, the burglary, id. at 52, the State was limited in obtaining convictions to offenses logically included with that crime, id. at 52. The defendant contends that because the State chose not to charge him with burglary with serious bodily injury as a class A felony, the State was not entitled to conviction of crimes consistent only with a theory it chose not to pursue, namely burglary with bodily injury. Id. at 55. The defendant cites Rodriguez v. State, 179 Ind.App. 464, 385 N.E.2d 1208 (1979), for the proposition that the State is bound by the charges it brings and allows instruction on. Brief of Petitioner-Appellant at 54. The defendant also asserts that [a]n alleged course of conduct by a defendant cannot be artificially separated into distinct parts and that [a]ll essential elements of a criminal offense must be contained within the charging instrument filed against a defendant. Reply/Cross-Appellee Brief at 46. The defendant argues that his convictions and sentences for the crimes of criminal confinement, murder, and rape lack the necessary foundation in the State's charging method, Brief of Petitioner-Appellant at 55, that after charging the defendant with class B burglary the State cannot later reap the benefit of an improper conviction of a greater offense, Reply/Cross-Appellee Brief at 46, and that, accordingly, these convictions and sentences should be vacated. The post-conviction court restated the defendant's contention as follows: since all charges against [the defendant] flow from the burglary charge, ... there is no jury finding that the burglary resulted in serious bodily injury (death) and the judgment of guilt of criminal confinement, murder, and rape result in verdicts greater than that charged, and therefore cannot stand. P.C.R. Record at 735. The court concluded that the Judgments which entered herein as a result of the charging informations filed, and the jury instructions given, do not violate the principle announced in Rodriguez v. State, 179 Ind. App. 464, 385 N.E.2d 1208 (1979). P.C.R. Record at 755. The court also concluded that the law was with the State on this issue. The defendant asserts this claim, despite procedural default, alleging fundamental error. An otherwise forfeited claim may be reviewed when we find blatant violations of basic principles, the harm or potential for harm is substantial, and the resulting error denied the defendant fundamental due process. Baird v. State, 688 N.E.2d 911, 917 (Ind.1997). When the defendant stood trial, he was charged with burglary, as a class B felony, criminal confinement, rape, criminal deviate conduct, and murder. The jury was instructed regarding the following offenses: burglary, both as a class C felony and a class B felony; confinement, both as a class D felony and a class B felony; rape, both as a class B felony and a class A felony; criminal deviate conduct; and murder. We agree with the post-conviction court and find no error, fundamental or otherwise. The defendant argues in the alternative that this claim is available because appellate counsel was ineffective. We need not address the adequacy of counsel's performance unless the defendant establishes prejudice as a result of the claimed error. Miller v. State, 702 N.E.2d 1053, 1070 (Ind.1998). The purpose of the charging instrument is to provide a defendant with notice of the crime of which he is charged so that he is able to prepare a defense. Wisehart v. State, 693 N.E.2d 23, 63 (Ind.1998). The defendant does not allege or present any evidence that suggests that he was unable to defend himself based upon the charges as written. In fact, the charges as written clearly included allegations of bodily injury and death within the multi-count information. The charges upon which the defendant was convicted were set forth in a valid charging instrument, and we have previously determined that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions on those charges. Davis, 598 N.E.2d at 1046. The defendant has not established a reasonable possibility that he was deprived of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable, because of appellate counsel's alleged error in failing to raise this issue. We decline to find post-conviction error on this issue.