Court Opinion

ID: 9959770
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-12 16:04:37.507044+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:53.392155
License: Public Domain

IN THE

            Court of Appeals of Indiana
                                          Kevin Hamilton,                   FILED
                                         Appellant-Defendant           Apr 12 2024, 8:46 am

                                                                            CLERK
                                                                        Indiana Supreme Court
                                                     v.                    Court of Appeals
                                                                             and Tax Court

                                          State of Indiana,
                                            Appellee-Plaintiff

                                             April 12, 2024
                                     Court of Appeals Case No.
                                            23A-PC-15
                              Appeal from the Allen Superior Court
                              The Honorable Frances C. Gull, Judge
                                        Trial Court Cause No.
                                       02D06-1903-PC-000025

                          Opinion by Judge Felix
Judge Crone concurs in part and concurs in result in part with separate opinion.
                Judge Brown dissents with separate opinion.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-PC-15 | April 12, 2024      Page 1 of 44
      Felix, Judge.

      Statement of the Case
[1]   Kevin Hamilton filed a petition for post-conviction relief (“PCR”), alleging

      ineffective assistance of trial counsel, ineffective assistance of appellate counsel,

      and that new evidence exists regarding sentencing. When he filed the petition,

      he also filed a motion for change of judge (the “Motion”). The PCR court

      denied both Hamilton’s petition and the Motion. Hamilton appeals those

      denials and presents four issues for our review, which we revise and restate as

      the following two issues:

          1. Whether the PCR court clearly erred when it denied the Motion;
          2. Whether the PCR court clearly erred when it denied Hamilton’s PCR
             petition.

[2]   We affirm.

      Facts and Procedural History
      Trial, Sentencing, and Direct Appeal

[3]   In 2017, a jury convicted Hamilton of murder, robbery as a Level 2 felony, and

      an enhancement for use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. We have

      previously set out the facts underlying those convictions:

              On August 13, 2016, Hamilton and his friend, Devyn Yancey
              (“Yancey”), were exchanging text messages regarding the fact
              that marijuana they had purchased from Brian Quintana
              (“Quintana”) was ten grams short. Hamilton and Yancey
              decided to rob Quintana the next day, during an arranged buy.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-PC-15 | April 12, 2024            Page 2 of 44
        Via text, Yancey assured Hamilton that Quintana would have
        only one person with him, if anyone, and that no one would be
        armed. Hamilton said he would bring his .9–millimeter
        handgun. Referring to the robbery, Hamilton texted, “Sounds
        easy. Let’s do it.”

        On August 14, 2016, Hamilton picked up Yancey, and they
        drove to the parking lot of the Woodbridge Apartments in Allen
        County, where Quintana was waiting in his car. Yancey and
        Hamilton entered Quintana’s car; Yancey sat in the passenger
        seat, and Hamilton, brandishing his gun, sat in the back. Seeing
        the handgun, and understanding that he was being robbed,
        Quintana tried to wrestle the gun out of Hamilton’s hand.
        Yancey went around to the driver’s side door and started hitting
        Quintana. This allowed Hamilton to secure his gun and exit the
        car. As Yancey and Quintana continued to struggle in the front
        seat of the car, Hamilton fired his gun through the back
        windshield, striking Quintana in the right lower chest. Yancey
        grabbed a bag of Quintana’s marijuana, and he and Hamilton
        fled from the scene.

        When police arrived at the scene, Quintana told them that
        Hamilton had shot him. Following a search, police tracked
        down Hamilton and arrested him. Quintana died from his
        injuries, and on August 18, 2016, Hamilton was charged with
        murder, felony murder, robbery as a Level 2 felony, and an
        enhancement for use of a firearm in the commission of a felony.
        A jury trial was conducted from March 7 through 9, 2017. . . .
        Hamilton was found guilty of all charges.

Hamilton v. State, 95 N.E.3d 218, No. 02A03-1704-CR-932, slip op. at ¶¶ 3–5

(Ind. Ct. App. Dec. 29, 2017) (record citations omitted), trans. denied.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-PC-15 | April 12, 2024           Page 3 of 44
[4]   At trial and sentencing, John Bohdan represented Hamilton. At the sentencing

      hearing, Bohdan presented four mitigating factors: (1) Hamilton was a minor—

      17 years old—at the time of the offense, (2) Hamilton lacked an adult criminal

      history, (3) the circumstances of the crime were unlikely to reoccur, and (4)

      Hamilton was the father of a young son. In particular, Bohdan argued that

      Hamilton had “an undeveloped juvenile mind,” which resulted in “the tragic

      results of what happened [not being] as foreseeable for” Hamilton. Sent. Tr.

      Vol. I at 6. Bohdan also argued that Hamilton, who was already a father of one

      child, had a “good influence on his child’s upbringing.” Id. The trial court

      heard testimony from Quintana’s father about how much he missed his son.

      The trial court also reviewed Hamilton’s presentence investigation report and

      letters from Hamilton’s mother and girlfriend.

[5]   Hamilton addressed the trial court, as well:

              It doesn’t matter what I say, it will never explain how sorry I am.
              And I don’t expect you to forgive me, I wouldn’t. . . . I never
              had the intention to take your son’s life. . . . I would give my life
              for him to have his back, but I can’t. The only thing I can do
              though is sit in prison for the rest of my life. And if that’s what I
              have to do to make things right then I’ll do it and I’m sorry. . . .
              I don’t want to be defined by what I did when I was a kid. And
              I’m not gonna blame that on me being a kid, I just – I was dumb.
              . . . I’m not innocent, I know I’m guilty. I know I was guilty, I
              just don’t agree with what was brought to me. Murder, I know
              I’m not guilty of murder. I’m not a murdere[r], I’m not a killer.
              I could never. But what I did, someone did die and I know I did
              that.

      Sent. Tr. Vol. I at 11–12.
      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-PC-15 | April 12, 2024           Page 4 of 44
[6]   The trial court found two aggravating factors: (1) Hamilton’s failed attempts at

      rehabilitation after two informal juvenile adjustments, and (2) the nature and

      circumstances of the offense. The trial court found two mitigating factors: (1)

      Hamilton was a minor at the time of the offense, and (2) Hamilton’s

      incarceration would be an undue hardship for his son. The trial court did not

      consider Hamilton’s lack of an adult criminal history to be a mitigating factor

      because Hamilton had a history of juvenile involvement. The trial court also

      declined to consider as a mitigating factor that the circumstances of Hamilton’s

      offense were unlikely to reoccur. Based on the aggravating and mitigating

      factors, the trial court sentenced Hamilton to a total of 74 years in the Indiana

      Department of Correction: 55 years for murder, 9 years for robbery as a Level 3

      felony,1 and 10 years for use of a firearm in the commission of a felony, all to be

      served consecutively.

[7]   On direct appeal, Thomas Allen represented Hamilton. Allen raised three

      issues on Hamilton’s behalf for our consideration:

               I. Whether the trial court erred in merging Hamilton’s felony
               murder conviction with his murder conviction;

               II. Whether reducing Hamilton’s conviction from Level 2 felony
               robbery to Level 3 felony robbery for purposes of sentencing

      1
       Although Hamilton was convicted of robbery as a Level 2 felony, the sentencing court reduced the
      conviction to a Level 3 felony. The issue of this reduction was addressed in Hamilton’s direct appeal.
      Hamilton, No. 02A03-1704-CR-932, slip op. at ¶¶ 10–17.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-PC-15 | April 12, 2024                                 Page 5 of 44
              remedied double jeopardy violations under Indiana’s Double
              Jeopardy Clause; and

              III. Whether the trial court erred by allowing the jury to hear
              evidence on the enhancement—use of a firearm in the
              commission of an offense causing death or serious bodily
              injury—at the same time the jury heard evidence on the other
              counts.

      Hamilton, No. 02A03-1704-CR-932, slip op. at ¶ 1. We affirmed Hamilton’s

      convictions, id. at ¶¶ 9, 17, 23, 24, and the Indiana Supreme Court denied

      transfer, Hamilton v. State, 97 N.E.3d 236 (Ind. 2018).

      Post-Conviction Proceedings

[8]   On March 12, 2019, Hamilton filed a PCR petition, which he later amended.

      In addition to his initial petition, Hamilton also filed the Motion (requesting a

      change of judge) along with an accompanying affidavit by Hamilton (the

      “Affidavit”). The PCR court denied the Motion without hearing because “the

      Affidavit attached does not support a rational inference of personal bias or

      prejudice against the Petitioner.” Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 27. The PCR

      court also denied Hamilton’s motion to reconsider this issue, as well as

      Hamilton’s subsequent motion to certify these denials for interlocutory appeal.

[9]   At the evidentiary hearing, Hamilton questioned Bohdan about his current

      employment. Bohdan testified that he is the magistrate for the Allen Superior

      Court and that he is employed by all three Criminal Division judges, including

      the PCR judge. Hamilton then renewed the Motion, and the PCR court denied

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-PC-15 | April 12, 2024           Page 6 of 44
       it once again, noting “that the [A]ffidavit does not contain any information, as I

       indicated in my Order, on historical bias against the Defendant.” Tr. Vol. II at

       8. Hamilton then proceeded to present evidence regarding his claims that he

       received ineffective assistance of trial counsel, he received ineffective assistance

       of appellate counsel, and he is entitled to a new sentencing hearing based on

       newly discovered evidence. After the hearing, Hamilton and the State

       submitted proposed orders. The PCR court ultimately denied Hamilton’s

       petition. This appeal ensued. Additional facts are set forth below.

       Discussion and Decision
       1. Denial of the Change of Judge Motion

[10]   Hamilton argues that the PCR court clearly erred when it denied the Motion.

       Hamilton specifically contends that the PCR court’s decision is in violation of

       Indiana Post-Conviction Rule 1(4)(b), Indiana Code of Judicial Conduct

       (“CJC”) Rule 2.11(A), and the Due Process Clause of Fourteenth Amendment2

       of the United States Constitution. We address each basis in turn.

               a. Post-Conviction Rule 1(4)(b)

[11]   Post-Conviction Rule 1(4)(b) provides in relevant part:

       2
        In the Motion and on appeal, Hamilton points us to both the Fifth Amendment and the Fourteenth
       Amendment. The Fifth Amendment deals in relevant part with due process in criminal proceedings. See U.S.
       Const., amend. V. PCR proceedings are civil proceedings, see Ind. Post-Conviction Rule 1; Gibson v. State,
       133 N.E.3d 673, 681 (Ind. 2019), so the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause is inapplicable to the Motion.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-PC-15 | April 12, 2024                               Page 7 of 44
                 Within ten (10) days of filing a petition for post-conviction relief
                 under this rule, the petitioner may request a change of judge by
                 filing an affidavit that the judge has a personal bias or prejudice
                 against the petitioner. The petitioner’s affidavit shall state the facts
                 and the reasons for the belief that such bias or prejudice exists,
                 and shall be accompanied by a certificate from the attorney of
                 record that the attorney in good faith believes that the historical
                 facts recited in the affidavit are true. A change of judge shall be
                 granted if the historical facts cited in the affidavit support a
                 rational inference of bias or prejudice.

       (Emphases added). A bias is “personal” under Post-Conviction Rule 1(4)(b) “if

       it stems from an extrajudicial source—meaning a source separate from the

       evidence and argument presented at the proceedings.” Pruitt v. State, 903

       N.E.2d 899, 939 (Ind. 2009) (quoting Lambert v. State, 743 N.E.2d 719, 728

       (Ind. 2001)). Personal bias or prejudice generally “exists only where there is an

       undisputed claim or the judge has expressed an opinion on the merits of the

       controversy before [the court].” Robinson v. State, 218 N.E.3d 17, 29 (Ind. Ct.

       App. 2023) (quoting L.G. v. S.L., 88 N.E.3d 1069, 1073 (Ind. 2018)), trans. not

       sought.

[12]   A change of judge pursuant to Post-Conviction Rule 1(4)(b) is neither

       “automatic” nor “discretionary”; instead, it calls for a legal determination.

       Pruitt, 903 N.E.2d at 939 (quoting Lambert, 743 N.E.2d at 728). In making this

       determination, the PCR court must “examine the affidavit, treat the historical

       facts recited in the affidavit as true, and determine whether these facts support a

       rational inference of bias or prejudice.” Id. (quoting Lambert, 743 N.E.2d at

       728). We review a PCR court’s ruling on a motion for change of judge under

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-PC-15 | April 12, 2024                     Page 8 of 44
       the clearly erroneous standard. Robinson, 218 N.E.3d at 30 (citing Garland v.

       State, 788 N.E.2d 425, 433 (Ind. 2003)). We will reverse only upon a showing

       that “leaves us with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been

       made.” Id. (citing Garland, 788 N.E.2d at 433). This is a heavy burden,

       especially because we presume that the PCR judge is not biased against a party

       and because disqualification is not required under Post-Conviction Rule 1(4)(b)

       “unless the judge holds a ‘personal bias or prejudice.’” Pruitt, 903 N.E.2d at 939

       (quoting Lambert, 743 N.E.2d at 728). That is, to overcome the presumption

       that the PCR judge is unbiased, the party requesting the change of judge must

       demonstrate that the PCR judge has an actual personal bias or prejudice against

       him. See id. (quoting Lambert, 743 N.E.2d at 728).

[13]   Hamilton’s Affidavit contained only three allegations:

               1. I was charged with multiple offense[s], including Murder, in
               Cause No. 02D06-1608-MR-5.

               2. At the trial level, I was represented by Mr. John Bohdan.

               3. I believe he is now an Allen County magistrate working for
               Judge Gull who presided over my case and sentencing.

       Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 19.

[14]   Hamilton does not include any allegations in the Affidavit that would support a

       rational inference that the PCR judge is biased against him for any reason,

       including because of the PCR judge’s alleged employer-employee relationship

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-PC-15 | April 12, 2024          Page 9 of 44
       with Bohdan. Based on our standard of review and the requirements of Post-

       Conviction Rule 1(4)(b), we cannot say that the PCR court clearly erred in

       denying the Motion on this ground.

               b. CJC Rule 2.11(A)

[15]   CJC Rule 2.11(A) provides that a “judge shall disqualify himself or herself in

       any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be

       questioned,” including under certain circumstances such as when a judge’s

       family member is a party to the proceeding or the judge served as a lawyer in

       the controversy. We initially observe that an employment relationship does not

       fall within any of the specifically enumerated categories of relationships that

       may give rise to the appearance of impartiality. Ind. Judicial Conduct Rule

       2.11(A)(1)–(6). Therefore, Hamilton’s argument falls under the general

       provision of CJC Rule 2.11(A). See Jud. Cond. R. 2.11(A), cmt. 1.

[16]   Before we begin an analysis of the facts of this cases under CJC Rule 2.11(A), it

       is important to note that in Mathews v. State, another panel of this court held

       that CJC Rule 2.11(A) does not create a freestanding right of enforcement by a

       private party. 64 N.E. 3d 1250, 1255 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied.

       Rather, the obligations of this rule are enforced first by the individual judge

       against herself, id. (citing Voss v. State, 856 Ne.E.2d 1211, 1221 (Ind. 2006);

       Tyson v. State, 622 N.E.2d 457 (Ind. 1993)), and finally by disciplinary actions of

       our Supreme Court, id. (citing Ind. Admission and Discipline Rule 25(VII)).

       Therefore, we do not independently review a trial judge’s recusal decision in

       light of the CJC Rules, id.; nevertheless, in the alternative, or under an
       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-PC-15 | April 12, 2024          Page 10 of 44
       abundance of caution, the Mathews court and other panels of this court that

       have followed the Mathews holding have engaged in that independent review

       anyway, see Mathews, 64 N.E.3d at 1256–57; Abney v. State, 79 N.E.3d 942, 951–

       54 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017), trans. not sought; Cheek v. State, 79 N.E.3d 388, 390–92

       (Ind. Ct. App. 2017), trans. not sought. Although our Supreme Court has yet to

       expressly address these holdings from the Mathews decision and its progeny, it

       has not granted relief based solely on the CJC Rules absent an independent

       procedural vehicle for bringing a recusal claim, Mathews, 64 N.E.3d at 1255.

       Additionally, when reviewing recusal issues, our Supreme Court has used the

       CJC Rules in analyzing the trial judge’s recusal decision, see L.G., 88 N.E.3d at

       1071–73;3 Lee v. State, 735 N.E.2d 1169, 1171–72 (Ind. 2000).

[17]   Even if we were to undertake an independent review of the PCR judge’s

       decision in light of CJC Rule 2.11(A), Hamilton would not prevail. Because

       Hamilton’s argument regarding CJC Rule 2.11(A) is brought within the context

       of a Post-Conviction Rule 1(4)(b) motion, we analyze it under the clearly

       erroneous standard of review set forth above. And, as previously discussed,

       “[w]e begin with the presumption that a trial judge is unbiased.” State ex rel.

       Allen v. Carroll Cir. Ct., 226 N.E.3d 206, 217 (Ind. 2024) (citing Smith v. State,

       770 N.E.2d 818, 823 (Ind. 2002)). “To overcome that presumption, the party

       3
        In L.G., 88 N.E.3d at 1071–72, our Supreme Court even cited to this court’s decisions in Abney and Cheek;
       however, it did not repeat, approve, or offer any guidance regarding the proposition in Mathews that we
       should not consider Judicial Conduct Rules as an independent basis of relief for motions requesting recusal
       or disqualification, see id. at 1071–73.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-PC-15 | April 12, 2024                               Page 11 of 44
       seeking disqualification must identify facts reflecting the judge’s actual bias or

       prejudice.” Id. (emphasis added) (citing Smith, 770 N.E.2d at 823).

[18]   Our Supreme Court has explained that friendship or professional admiration

       between a judge and a party or lawyer in a case, without more, may not be

       enough to require the judge’s recusal. L.G., 88 N.E.3d at 1071. Instead, the

       litigant requesting recusal must show that “an objective person, knowledgeable of

       all the circumstances, would have a rational basis for doubting the judge’s

       impartiality.” Id. (emphasis added) (citing Bloomington Mag., Inc. v. Kiang, 961

       N.E.2d 61, 64 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012)). The Court determined that such a rational

       basis did not exist in L.G. v. S.L., where the trial judge presided over a contested

       adoption in which the adoptive parents were represented by an attorney who

       had served as a reference for and had written a recommendation letter on behalf

       of the trial judge. Id. at 1070, 1072–73. There was nothing “unusual” about the

       attorney’s “enthusiastic and flattering” letter nor did the letter “indicate[] any

       sort of special relationship beyond a professional one.” Id. at 1073. Ultimately,

       the Court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to recuse in

       part because “recusal in this instance would not be based on the circumstances

       of the case, but rather on speculation.” Id. at 1072–73.

[19]   In reaching its conclusion in L.G., the Court also considered Justice Massa’s

       Order in Indiana Gas Co. v. Indiana Finance Authority, 992 N.E.2d 678 (Ind.

       2013). There, Justice Massa was asked to recuse himself from the case because

       he had a personal friendship with one of the parties’ project managers, as

       evidenced in part by the project manager’s “flattering” speech at Justice
       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-PC-15 | April 12, 2024           Page 12 of 44
       Massa’s investiture ceremony. Id. at 679–80. Justice Massa declined to recuse

       himself, reasoning in relevant part as follows:

               It would be disabling to this Court if we were required to recuse
               every time a ‘friend’ came before us as a lawyer for a party or
               worked as an employee of, or consultant to, a party. . . . If mere
               friendship with these lawyers were enough to trigger
               disqualification, my colleagues and I would rarely sit as an intact
               court of five.

       Id. at 680.

[20]   Just as “friendship” or “professional admiration” alone may not be enough to

       require recusal (although it could be in some instances), neither does

       employment always demand recusal. See L.G., 88 N.E.3d at 1073. The party

       requesting recusal must provide more than mere speculation that a judge cannot

       be unbiased toward a party, witness, or counsel based on the existence of an

       employment relationship between the judge and person in question. See id. at

       1072.

[21]   At the PCR hearing, Bohdan testified that he has been the magistrate for the

       Allen Superior Court for three years and is “employed by the three (3) Criminal

       Division Judges,” including the PCR judge. Tr. Vol. II at 7–9. Aside from the

       Affidavit, this was the only evidence presented to the PCR court regarding the

       employment relationship between Bohdan and the PCR judge. Bohdan’s

       testimony and the Affidavit demonstrate that Bohdan has an employment

       relationship with the PCR judge. However, the record is completely devoid of

       any evidence regarding the “circumstances” of this employment relationship.
       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-PC-15 | April 12, 2024         Page 13 of 44
       For instance, we know nothing about the role the PCR judge played in

       Bohdan’s hiring, how often they work together, how closely they work together,

       whether the PCR judge reviews the magistrate’s work, and how many cases the

       PCR judge assigns to Bohdan.4

[22]   Because Hamilton does not provide us any information concerning the

       circumstances surrounding Bohdan and the PCR judge’s employment

       relationship and instead relies solely on its mere existence, we cannot say

       Hamilton has overcome the presumption that the PCR judge is impartial such

       that she clearly erred by denying the Motion based on the requirements of CJC

       Rule 2.11(A).

                c. Due Process Clause

[23]   The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States

       Constitution provides that no State can “deprive any person of life, liberty, or

       property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, § 1. This

       provision “may sometimes demand recusal even when a judge has no actual

       bias.” Rippo v. Baker, 580 U.S. 285, 287 (2017) (alteration and internal

       quotation marks omitted) (quoting Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Lavoie, 475 U.S. 813,

       825 (1986)). “Recusal is required when, objectively speaking, ‘the probability of

       actual bias on the part of the judge or decisionmaker is too high to be

       4
         By no means are we suggesting that this is an exhaustive list of factors, that these factors must be considered
       in a recusal analysis, or that any of these factors are dispositive in such an analysis. Rather, we list these
       factors as examples of information that we believe might have proven helpful to evaluate whether an
       objective person would have a rational basis for doubting the PCR judge’s impartiality in this case.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-PC-15 | April 12, 2024                                   Page 14 of 44
       constitutionally tolerable.’” Id. (quoting Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 47

       (1975)) (citing Williams v. Pennsylvania, 579 U.S. 1, 8 (2016)). In other words,

       the court must determine “whether, considering all the circumstances alleged,

       the risk of bias was too high to be constitutionally tolerable.” Id.

[24]   The United States Supreme Court has explained that one circumstance in

       which the risk of bias is constitutionally intolerable is “when the same person

       serves as both accuser and adjudicator in a case.” Williams, 579 U.S. at 8. In

       Williams v. Pennsylvania, for example, the prosecutor who sought the death

       penalty against Williams later became a chief justice and adjudicated William’s

       petition to overturn his death sentence. Id. The Court held that the chief

       justice’s failure to recuse himself from Williams’s case created an

       unconstitutional risk of bias because his “authorization to seek the death

       penalty against Williams amounts to significant, personal involvement in a

       critical trial decision.” Id. at 11.

[25]   Additionally, in Bracy v. Gramley, Bracy filed a habeas petition because the

       judge who oversaw his murder case was later convicted of accepting bribes from

       criminal defendants. 520 U.S. 899, 900–02 (1997). Bracy argued that a judge

       who accepts bribes to rule in favor of some defendants would seek to disguise

       that favorable treatment by ruling against defendants who did not bribe him,

       and he sought discovery to support this claim. Id. at 902–903. The United

       States Supreme Court determined Bracy was entitled to discovery “despite the

       ‘speculative’ nature of that theory . . . because he had also alleged specific facts

       suggesting that the judge may have colluded with defense counsel to rush the

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-PC-15 | April 12, 2024             Page 15 of 44
       petitioner’s case to trial.” Rippo, 580 U.S. at 286 (emphasis added) (citing

       Bracy, 520 U.S. at 905–09).

[26]   Here, we are not faced with a scenario similar to those in Williams and Bracy.

       Instead, the only facts alleged here are that an employment relationship existed

       between Bohdan and the PCR judge for approximately three years prior to the

       PCR hearing. Although Hamilton is not required to point to facts suggesting

       the PCR judge was actually biased against him to demonstrate an

       unconstitutional risk of bias exists, see Rippo, 580 U.S. at 287, simply pointing to

       the existence of an employment relationship between a witness and a judge is

       not enough to give rise to a constitutionally intolerable risk of bias. Therefore,

       the PCR judge’s denial of the Motion does not violate the Fourteenth

       Amendment of the United States Constitution.

       2. Denial of the PCR Petition

[27]   Hamilton contends that the PCR court erred when it denied his PCR petition.

       As our Supreme Court has explained:

               Post-conviction actions are civil proceedings, meaning the
               petitioner (the prior criminal defendant) must prove his claims by
               a preponderance of the evidence. Ind. Post-Conviction Rule
               1(5); Wilkes v. State, 984 N.E.2d 1236, 1240 (Ind. 2013). If he
               fails to meet this burden and receives a denial of post-conviction
               relief, then he proceeds from a negative judgment and on appeal
               must prove “that the evidence, as a whole, unmistakably and
               unerringly points to a conclusion contrary to the post-conviction
               court’s decision.” Wilkes, 984 N.E.2d at 1240 (quoting Ben-
               Yisrayl v. State, 738 N.E.2d 253, 258 (Ind. 2000)). When
               reviewing the court’s order denying relief, we will “not defer to

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-PC-15 | April 12, 2024         Page 16 of 44
                  the post-conviction court’s legal conclusions,” and the “findings
                  and judgment will be reversed only upon a showing of clear
                  error—that which leaves us with a definite and firm conviction
                  that a mistake has been made.” Humphrey v. State, 73 N.E.3d
                  677, 682 (Ind. 2017) (quoting Ben-Yisrayl v. State, 729 N.E.2d 102,
                  106 (Ind. 2000)).

       Bobadilla v. State, 117 N.E.3d 1272, 1279 (Ind. 2019).

[28]   In support of his position that the PCR court’s denial of his petition was clearly

       erroneous, Hamilton raises three main issues for our review: (a) whether the

       PCR court clearly erred when it found Hamilton did not establish that Bohdan

       provided ineffective assistance of counsel; (b) whether the PCR court clearly

       erred when it found Hamilton did not establish that Allen provided ineffective

       assistance of counsel; and (c) whether the PCR court clearly erred when it

       found that Hamilton is not entitled to a new sentencing hearing based on newly

       discovered evidence.

                  a. Ineffective Assistance of Trial Counsel

[29]   To evaluate a defendant’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, “we apply the

       well-established, two-part Strickland test.”5 Bobadilla v. State, 117 N.E.3d 1272,

       1280 (Ind. 2019) (citing Humphrey v. State, 73 N.E.3d 677, 682 (Ind. 2017)).

       Under that test, “the defendant must prove: (1) counsel rendered deficient

       performance, meaning counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard

       5
           Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984).

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-PC-15 | April 12, 2024            Page 17 of 44
       of reasonableness as gauged by prevailing professional norms; and (2) counsel’s

       deficient performance prejudiced the defendant, i.e., but for counsel’s errors the

       result of the proceeding would have been different.” Id. (citing Ward v. State,

       969 N.E.2d 46, 51 (Ind. 2012)). Failure to satisfy either of the two prongs will

       cause the claim to fail. French v. State, 778 N.E.2d 816, 824 (Ind. 2002).

[30]   “There is a strong presumption that counsel rendered adequate assistance and

       made all significant decisions in the exercise of reasonable professional

       judgment. Counsel is afforded considerable discretion in choosing strategy and

       tactics and these decisions are entitled to deferential review.” Weisheit v. State,

       109 N.E.3d 978, 983 (Ind. 2018) (internal citations omitted) (citing Stevens v.

       State, 770 N.E.2d 739, 746–47 (Ind. 2002)). Moreover, “isolated mistakes, poor

       strategy, inexperience and instances of bad judgment do not necessarily render

       representation ineffective.” Id. at 984 (citing Stevens, 770 N.E.2d at 747). We

       also consider the “legal precedent available to counsel at the time of his

       representation of the accused, and counsel will not be deemed ineffective for

       not anticipating or initiating changes in the law.” Lee v. State, 91 N.E.3d 978,

       987 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (quoting Sweeney v. State, 886 N.E.2d 1, 8 (Ind. Ct.

       App. 2008), trans. denied) (citing Smylie v. State, 823 N.E.2d 679, 690 (Ind.

       2005)), trans. denied.

[31]   Hamilton alleges his trial counsel was ineffective for (i) failing to object to a jury

       instruction and (ii) failing to conduct a mitigation investigation before

       sentencing.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-PC-15 | April 12, 2024            Page 18 of 44
             i.     Failure to Object to a Jury Instruction

[32]   Hamilton first claims Bohdan was ineffective because he did not make certain

       objections to the following final jury instruction (the “Instruction”):

               In Count I, Murder, the formation of the intention to kill may be
               as instantaneous as successive thoughts.

               The intent to kill can be found from the acts, declaration and
               conduct of the Defendant at or just immediately before the
               commission of the offense and/or from the nature of the weapon
               used.

       2017 Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 61–62.6 Hamilton’s trial counsel objected to

       the Instruction as follows:

               MR. BOHDAN: I would object to State’s proposed six as
               adequately covered by the instructions the Court has already
               indicated an intention to give.

               THE COURT: I don’t think it is covered by the Court’s
               anywhere. I’ll give six over objection . . . .

       2017 Tr. Vol. II at 156–57.

[33]   Hamilton argues that Bohdan should have objected to the first half of the

       Instruction “on the grounds that the language was erroneously taken from a

       6
         In the Argument section of his brief, Hamilton did not provide Bohdan’s verbatim objection to this jury
       instruction as required by Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(e). However, because Hamilton’s noncompliance
       with Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(e) does not substantially impede our review of this claim, we choose to address
       the merits thereof. See Pierce v. State, 29 N.E.3d 1258, 1267 (Ind. 2015).

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-PC-15 | April 12, 2024                               Page 19 of 44
       Court of Appeals’ sufficiency review, that it unfairly highlighted the State’s

       theory of the case, invaded the province of the jury, and had the potential to

       mislead and confuse the jury.” Appellant’s Br. at 50. The PCR court

       concluded that Bohdan’s performance was not deficient on these grounds

       because “existing authority would not have supported any of the proposed

       additional grounds for objection . . . , but would (at most) have been potentially

       useful in arguing for an extension of existing general rules to cover that

       instruction.” Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 168.

[34]   When a petitioner claims that trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to

       object at trial, the petitioner “must prove that the trial court would have

       sustained the objection” to show prejudice under the second prong of the

       Strickland test. Passwater v. State, 989 N.E.2d 766, 770 (Ind. 2013) (citing Lowery

       v. State, 640 N.E.2d 1031, 1042 (Ind. 1994)). We recognize that our Supreme

       Court has warned against using language from appellate cases for jury

       instructions: “The mere fact that certain language or expression [is] used in the

       opinions of this Court to reach its final conclusion does not make it proper

       language for instructions to a jury.” Ludy v. State, 784 N.E.2d 459, 462 (Ind.

       2003) (quoting Drollinger v, State, 274 Ind. 5, 25, 408 N.E.2d 1228, 1241 (1980)).

       A jury instruction that uses language from an appellate case is not improper so

       long as it is a correct statement of the law and does not mislead the jury. Keller

       v. State, 47 N.E.3d 1205, 1208 (Ind. 2016).

[35]   Here, the first half of the Instruction was a correct statement of the law. In

       Castellanos v. State, our Supreme Court reiterated a long-standing concept that

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-PC-15 | April 12, 2024         Page 20 of 44
       “the formation of the intention to kill and the killing may be as instantaneous as

       successive thoughts.” 477 N.E.2d 279, 281 (Ind. 1985) (citing Brewer v. State,

       253 Ind. 154, 166, 252 N.E.2d 429, 436 (1969)). Although the Castellanos Court

       made this statement in the context of a now repealed murder statute—Indiana

       Code section 35-13-4-1 (repealed 1976)—that required the State to prove

       premeditation, there is no indication that the statement itself is no longer good

       law. To the extent this statement from the Castellanos Court may not be good

       law, Bohdan cannot “be deemed ineffective for not anticipating or initiating

       changes in the law.” Lee, 91 N.E.3d at 987 (quoting Sweeney, 886 N.E.2d at 8)

       (citing Smylie, 823 N.E.2d at 690). Furthermore, Hamilton has not pointed us

       to a single Indiana decision that has found the Instruction or anything similar to

       it to be error.

[36]   Likewise, in Barany v. State, the Indiana Supreme Court held that language

       similar to the second half of the Instruction was a correct statement of law

       because “[w]e have repeatedly held that the intent to kill may be inferred from

       the use of a deadly weapon; the nature, duration, or brutality of the attack; and

       the circumstances surrounding the crime.” 658 N.E.2d 60, 65 (Ind. 1995)

       (citing Nunn v. State, 601 N.E.2d 334, 339 (Ind. 1992)). In fact, we recently held

       in Birk v. State that a jury instruction substantially similar to the second half of

       the Instruction was a correct statement of the law. 215 N.E.3d 1090, 1097–98

       (Ind. Ct. App. 2023) (citing Barany, 658 N.E.2d at 65), trans. not sought.

[37]   An instruction misleads the jury when it “unnecessarily emphasize[s] one

       particular evidentiary fact, witness, or phase of the case.” Ludy, 784 N.E.2d at

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-PC-15 | April 12, 2024            Page 21 of 44
       461 (citing Dill v. State, 741 N.E.2d 1230, 1232 (Ind. 2001)). For instance, in

       Ludy v. State, the trial court gave the following jury instruction: “A conviction

       may be based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of the alleged victim if

       such testimony establishes each element of any crime charged beyond a

       reasonable doubt.” 784 N.E.2d at 460. The Indiana Supreme Court

       determined that this instruction was misleading to the jury because it “unfairly

       focuse[d] the jury’s attention on and highlight[ed] a single witness’s testimony”;

       expressly directed the jury that it could find the defendant guilty without

       considering all the evidence, which is a “concept used in appellate review that is

       irrelevant to a jury’s function as fact-finder”; and “us[ed] the technical term

       ‘uncorroborated.’” Id. at 461–62. Despite the instruction in Ludy being

       erroneous, the error did not require reversal because it “did not affect the

       defendant’s substantial rights.” Id. at 463.

[38]   Here, by contrast, the Instruction focused on the murder charge, but it did not

       emphasize particular evidence; it did not invite the jury to consider less than all

       the evidence; and it did not use technical terms that may confuse a jury. We

       therefore cannot say that the Instruction was misleading. Because the

       Instruction was a correct statement of the law and did not mislead the jury, the

       fact that some of its language came from an appellate case did not render it

       improper. See Keller, 47 N.E.3d at 1208. As such, we cannot say that the trial

       court would have sustained Hamilton’s proffered objections to the Instruction,

       so the PCR court did not clearly err in finding that Hamilton did not establish

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-PC-15 | April 12, 2024         Page 22 of 44
       Bohdan provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to challenge the

       Instruction on Hamilton’s proffered grounds.

            ii.     Failure to Conduct a Mitigation Investigation

[39]   Hamilton next challenges the efficacy of Bohdan’s assistance during the

       sentencing phase of trial. Specifically, Hamilton argues that Bohdan provided

       ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to investigate potential mitigating

       factors for sentencing, namely Hamilton’s mental health issues, including

       potential bipolar disorder, and traumatic experiences. On this issue, the PCR

       court concluded only that Hamilton was not prejudiced by Bohdan’s failure to

       present evidence of Hamilton’s potential bipolar disorder. Appellant’s App.

       Vol. II at 172–73. The PCR court did not address whether Bohdan provided

       ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to conduct a mitigation investigation,

       see id., so we review this issue de novo, Ellis v. State, 67 N.E.3d 643, 646 (Ind.

       2017) (citing Allen v. State, 749 N.E.2d 1158, 1170 (Ind. 2001)).

[40]   Hamilton alleged in his amended PCR petition that a reasonable mitigation

       investigation would have revealed that (1) “Hamilton had a family history of

       bipolar disorder and severe substance abuse,” and (2) Hamilton “experienced

       two traumatic events as a teenager”—“he had shot himself in the head[,] for

       which he received no follow-up mental health treatment,” and “on a separate

       occasion, he witnessed his friend shoot himself.” Appellant’s App. Vol. II at

       30. Hamilton also asserted in his amended PCR petition that a psychological

       evaluation would have revealed that Hamilton “did suffer from the onset of

       significant mental illness.” Id.
       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-PC-15 | April 12, 2024          Page 23 of 44
[41]   Hamilton’s presentence investigation report revealed that he had an eleventh-

       grade education, was in good physical health, and had not been diagnosed with

       any mental illnesses. Hamilton reported that he was raised by his parents, did

       not suffer any forms of abuse as a child, had a good childhood, and maintained

       good relationships with his family. Hamilton became a father at 14 years old.

       Also according to the presentence investigation report, Hamilton had a history

       of substance abuse. Since he was 15 years old, Hamilton had used marijuana

       daily and consumed alcohol once every other month. Hamilton also “used

       powder cocaine once at age 15, once at 16, and three (3) times at age 17.” Ex.

       Vol. I at 11. Hamilton denied using any other illegal substances. At age 14,

       Hamilton had an informal juvenile adjustment for battery resulting in bodily

       injury. At age 17, Hamilton had an informal juvenile adjustment for possession

       of a controlled substance and possession of marijuana. Hamilton participated

       in substance abuse treatment as part of both informal adjustments.

[42]   Hamilton’s sister Cara Haddix testified at the PCR hearing that they had a

       significant family history of substance abuse and mental illness. Two of their

       paternal aunts died of overdoses and a third paternal aunt was hospitalized and

       diagnosed with bipolar disorder after a suicide attempt. One of Hamilton’s

       sisters struggles with depression and social anxiety, and their paternal

       grandmother was diagnosed with bipolar disorder. Haddix described their

       father as being emotionally distant, self-isolating, an alcoholic, subject to mood

       swings, and rarely in a positive mood. Haddix believed their father’s behavior

       was indicative of bipolar disorder but noted that he did not have a diagnosis.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-PC-15 | April 12, 2024           Page 24 of 44
       She also stated that their father was verbally abusive, especially to Hamilton.

       Haddix further testified that Hamilton’s behavior began to resemble their

       father’s as he became a teenager; she noted that he had mood swings, isolated

       himself, became obsessive, and abused substances. According to Haddix,

       Hamilton “disengaged” from their family when he used drugs. Tr. Vol. II at

       68.

[43]   Ashley Kraus, a friend of Hamilton, testified at the PCR hearing that when

       Hamilton was 16 years old, he shot himself in the head in a single-person game

       of Russian Roulette. Kraus testified that she watched Hamilton spin the

       chamber of the revolver, point it at his head, and pull the trigger. The bullet

       grazed Hamilton’s head. He was taken to the hospital via ambulance. Leading

       up to the Russian Roulette incident, Haddix observed that Hamilton “was

       much heavier into the drugs. He was more or less just blank. He didn’t really

       care if he lived or died. He was a lot more isolated. The mood swings were so

       much heavier. He was just overall, it felt, in my opinion, unstable.” Tr. Vol. II

       at 69. Haddix testified that in the wake of the Russian Roulette incident ,

       Hamilton’s parents did not seek any mental health help for him.

[44]   Hamilton’s substance abuse counseling records reveal that Hamilton had

       “disturbing dreams,” Ex. Vol. I at 23; had trouble sleeping; had anxiety, which

       manifested as agitation and anger; had previously blacked out while angry;

       experienced panic attacks; had racing thoughts; witnessed a friend shoot

       himself and was accused by law enforcement of being the shooter; abused

       substances; had previously been expelled from school; had a family history of

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-PC-15 | April 12, 2024         Page 25 of 44
       anxiety and depression; and had a family history of drug use leading to health

       problems.

[45]   Assuming for the sake of argument that Bohdan was deficient as Hamilton

       alleges here, Hamilton has not demonstrated that Bohdan’s failure to conduct a

       reasonable mitigation investigation prejudiced Hamilton. To determine

       “whether a defendant is prejudiced by counsel’s failure at sentencing to present

       mitigating evidence,” courts must determine “what effect the totality of the

       omitted mitigation evidence would have had on the sentence.” McCarty v. State,

       802 N.E.2d at 968–69 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (citing Coleman v. State, 741 N.E.2d

       697, 702 (Ind. 2000)). Because a trial court’s sentencing decision is generally

       given great deference, Owen v. State, 210 N.E.3d 256, 269 (Ind. 2023) (quoting

       Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 490 (Ind. 2007), as amended (July 10, 2007),

       decision clarified on reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007)), reh’g denied (Aug. 17,

       2023), we are “hard pressed to conclude there is a reasonable probability that

       the trial court would have imposed a lesser sentence had it been presented with

       additional mitigating evidence that trial counsel should have brought to light,”

       McCarty, 802 N.E.2d at 968.

[46]   Hamilton argues that if Bohdan had presented evidence concerning his

       “traumatic experiences” and family history of mental illness and substance

       abuse, the trial court would have imposed a lesser sentence. We cannot agree.

       Hamilton’s “traumatic experiences” actually demonstrate that Hamilton had a

       history of reckless and dangerous behavior. By playing with and possessing

       firearms, Hamilton placed himself in dangerous situations, and associated with

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-PC-15 | April 12, 2024           Page 26 of 44
       others who engaged in harmful behaviors. Yet Hamilton continued to engage

       in reckless and dangerous situations, as evidenced by his decisions to participate

       in robbing Quintana and to ultimately shoot Quintana. See Hamilton, No. 02-

       A03-1704-CR-932, slip op. at ¶¶ 3–5. Moreover, the evidence of Hamilton’s

       family history of mental illness and substance abuse would have only served to

       potentially impeach Hamilton’s presentence investigation report in which he

       reported that he had not been diagnosed with any mental illnesses, did not

       suffer any forms of abuse as a child, had a good childhood, and maintained

       good relationships with his family. The same is true of the substance abuse

       counseling records and Haddix’s testimony. We do not believe the trial court

       would have sentenced Hamilton any differently on these facts if the trial court

       had learned that Hamilton’s family members had suffered from either alcohol

       or drug abuse, or mental illnesses.

[47]   We also do not believe the trial court would have determined that Hamilton’s

       struggles with anxiety, racing thoughts, and insomnia had much, if any,

       mitigating value. To determine the weight a defendant’s mental illness should

       be given at sentencing, the court considers several factors, including “(1) the

       extent of the defendant’s inability to control his or her behavior due to the

       disorder or impairment; (2) overall limitations on functioning; (3) the duration

       of the mental illness; and (4) the extent of any nexus between the disorder or

       impairment and the commission of the crime.” Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d 864,

       874 (Ind. 2012) (quoting Krempetz v. State, 872 N.E.2d 605, 615 (Ind. 2007)).

       There is no evidence in the record that Hamilton’s anxiety, racing thoughts, or

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-PC-15 | April 12, 2024         Page 27 of 44
       insomnia impaired his ability to control his behavior, limited his functioning, or

       was in any way linked to the offense.

[48]   Hamilton’s alleged omitted mitigation evidence has weak mitigating value at

       best and at worst actually has aggravating value. Additionally, Bohdan did

       present several mitigating circumstances for the court to consider and balance

       against the aggravating circumstances. On this record, we cannot say that the

       trial court would have imposed a mitigated sentence but for Bohdan’s alleged

       failure to conduct a reasonable mitigation investigation and resulting failure to

       present evidence of Hamilton’s “traumatic experiences” and family history of

       mental illness and substance abuse. Therefore, the trial court did not err when

       it found Hamilton did not prove Bohdan provided ineffective assistance of

       counsel.

               b. Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel

[49]   We also use the Strickland test to evaluate Hamilton’s claim that he received

       ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Harris v. State, 861 N.E.2d 1182,

       1186 (Ind. 2007) (citing Taylor v. State, 717 N.E.2d 90, 94 (Ind. 1999)).

       Ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claims fall into three categories: (1)

       denial of access to an appeal; (2) waiver of issues; and (3) failure to present

       issues well. Garrett v. State, 992 N.E.2d 710, 724 (Ind. 2013). Hamilton

       specifically claims that his appellate counsel was ineffective because he failed to

       present two issues on appeal: (i) whether the trial court used improper

       aggravating factors in sentencing Hamilton and (ii) whether Hamilton’s

       sentence was inappropriate under Appellate Rule 7(B).
       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-PC-15 | April 12, 2024            Page 28 of 44
[50]   “To show that counsel was ineffective for failing to raise an issue on appeal, the

       petitioner must overcome the strongest presumption of adequate assistance, and

       judicial scrutiny is highly deferential.” Reed v. State, 856 N.E.2d 1189, 1195

       (Ind. 2006) (citing Ben-Yisrayl, 738 N.E.2d at 261). To evaluate the

       performance prong when appellate counsel failed to raise an issue on appeal,

       we apply the following test: (1) whether the unraised issue is significant and

       obvious from the face of the record, and (2) whether the unraised issue is

       “clearly stronger” than the raised issues. Id. (citing Timberlake v. State, 753

       N.E.2d 591, 605–06 (Ind. 2001)). To determine if the defendant was

       prejudiced, we examine whether “the issues which . . . appellate counsel failed

       to raise, would have been clearly more likely to result in reversal or an order for

       a new trial.” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Bieghler v. State, 690 N.E.2d

       188, 194 (Ind. 1997)). “Ineffective assistance of counsel is very rarely found in

       cases where a defendant asserts that appellate counsel failed to raise an issue on

       direct appeal” because “the decision of what issues to raise is one of the most

       important strategic decisions to be made by appellate counsel.” Id. at 1196

       (citing Bieghler, 690 N.E.2d at 193).

[51]   We initially observe that on appeal, Allen did not challenge Hamilton’s

       sentence directly; rather, Allen focused on Double Jeopardy and bifurcation

       issues. Hamilton, No. 02A03-1704-CR-932, slip op. at ¶ 1.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-PC-15 | April 12, 2024          Page 29 of 44
                      i.     Failure to Appeal the Trial Court’s Alleged Use of
                             Improper Aggravator

[52]   Hamilton first contends that Allen should have challenged his sentence based

       on the trial court’s use of Hamilton’s informal juvenile adjustments as an

       aggravating factor. Hamilton does not argue that Allen should have challenged

       his sentence based on the trial court’s use of the nature and circumstances of

       Hamilton’s offense as the only other aggravating factor.

[53]   It is “completely appropriate for the trial court to consider [a defendant’s]

       criminal history as an aggravating factor.” McElfresh v. State, 51 N.E.3d 103,

       111–12 (Ind. 2016). Indiana Code section 35-38-1-7.1(a)(2) specifically states

       that when imposing a sentence, the court may consider as an aggravating

       circumstance the defendant’s “history of criminal or delinquent behavior.” The

       weight of the criminal history may vary “based on the gravity, nature[,] and

       number of prior offenses as they relate to the current offense,” id. at 112

       (quoting Williams v. State, 838 N.E.2d 1019, 1021 (Ind. 2005)), but

       consideration of such criminal history is not an abuse of discretion, id.

       Accordingly, it was not erroneous for the trial court here to consider Hamilton’s

       informal juvenile adjustments as an aggravating factor.

[54]   In addition, on direct appeal, we would have reviewed the trial court’s

       sentencing decision for only an abuse of discretion. See Owen, 210 N.E.3d at

       269 (quoting Anglemyer, 868 N.E.2d at 490). Even if Allen had challenged only

       the trial court’s use of Hamilton’s informal juvenile adjustments as an

       aggravating factor (as Hamilton argues Allen should have), we would not have

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-PC-15 | April 12, 2024            Page 30 of 44
       remanded for resentencing so long as we could have said “with confidence the

       trial court would have imposed the same sentence had it not considered the

       purportedly erroneous aggravators,” Owen, 210 N.E.3d at 269 (citing McDonald

       v. State, 868 N.E.2d 1111, 1114 (Ind. 2007)).

[55]   Hamilton asserts that the trial court’s statement regarding the nature and

       circumstances of the offenses is insufficient to support his sentence. At the

       sentencing hearing, the trial court stated that it found “the nature and

       circumstances of the crimes to be aggravators, again all as reflected in the

       Affidavit for Probable Cause and in the information presented to the jury and as

       argued by the State of Indiana.” Sent. Tr. Vol. I at 15. Hamilton argues that

       this statement is similar to the inadequate statement in Wooley v. State, 716

       N.E.2d 919, 929–30 (Ind. 1999).7 We disagree.

[56]   In Wooley, the trial court found as an aggravating factoring that “the defendant

       is in need of correctional or rehabilitative treatment that can best be provided by

       commitment of defendant to a penal facility.” 716 N.E.2d at 929–930 (citing

       I.C. § 35-38-1-7.1(b)(3)). The trial court explained that “the defendant has not

       voluntarily attempted any rehabilitative treatment such as counseling while

       incarcerated.” Id. at 930. Our Supreme Court concluded that the trial court’s

       7
         We observe that Wooley was decided under the now-repealed presumptive sentencing scheme. However,
       the discussion in Wooley regarding the need for trial courts to sufficiently explain aggravating factors still
       applies.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-PC-15 | April 12, 2024                                   Page 31 of 44
       “statement is insufficient to support the imposition of an aggravated sentence”

       because

               [e]very executed sentence entails incarceration. The question is
               whether extended incarceration is appropriate. There is no
               evidence to support the conclusion that Wooley is in need of
               treatment beyond the presumptive term. . . . The trial court did
               not provide a specific or individualized statement of reason why
               Wooley was in need of time in a penal institution in excess of the
               presumptive sentence.

       Id.

[57]   Here, however, the trial court expressly referenced the Affidavit of Probable

       cause, informations, and the State’s sentencing argument. According to those

       documents, Hamilton and Yancey planned to rob Quintana because Quintana

       allegedly shorted Yancey $10-worth of marijuana in a prior drug deal. When

       Quintana attempted to foil their robbery attempt, Hamilton shot Quintana in

       the back. Hamilton and Yancey then fled the scene and did not attempt to get

       help for Quintana. Again, the trial court did not impose an aggravated

       sentence; instead, the trial court imposed only an advisory sentence on the first

       two counts and a lower mid-range sentence for the enhancement due to the use

       of a firearm.

[58]   Hamilton also asserts that the trial court should not have considered his

       informal juvenile adjustments to be aggravating because they were not relevant

       to his convictions for murder and robbery or to the firearm enhancement.

       Hamilton primarily relies on our Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. State to

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-PC-15 | April 12, 2024        Page 32 of 44
       support this argument, but that case is inapposite on this particular issue

       because it addresses only revision of the defendant’s sentence under Appellate

       Rule 7(B); it does not address whether the defendant’s “lengthy history of

       juvenile adjustments” was an improper aggravating factor. Brown v. State, 10

       N.E3d 1, 5–6 (Ind. 2014). Further, to the extent Hamilton’s argument is an

       invitation for us to reweigh the evidence, we decline as that is something we

       could not have done on direct appeal. See McElfresh, 51 N.E.3d at 108.

[59]   We believe that the trial court’s sentencing statement is sufficient and that

       Hamilton has not demonstrated that the trial court would have imposed a lesser

       sentence if it had not considered Hamilton’s informal juvenile adjustments.

       Consequently, even if Allen had challenged the trial court’s use of Hamilton’s

       informal juvenile adjustments as an aggravating factor, it was not “clearly more

       likely to result in reversal or an order for a new trial.” Reed, 856 N.E.2d at

       1195. Based on the foregoing, we cannot say that the trial court clearly erred in

       finding that Hamilton did not establish Allen provided ineffective assistance of

       counsel by failing to raise this issue on appeal.

                     ii.     Failure to Appeal Hamilton’s Sentence Pursuant to
                             Appellate Rule 7(B)

[60]   Hamilton next argues that Allen should have challenged his sentence under

       Appellate Rule 7(B). The Indiana Constitution authorizes us to independently

       review and revise a trial court’s sentencing decision. Faith v. State, 131 N.E.3d

       158, 159 (Ind. 2019) (citing Ind. Const. art. 7, §§ 4, 6; McCain v. State, 88

       N.E.3d 1066, 1067 (Ind. 2018)). That authority is implemented through

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-PC-15 | April 12, 2024          Page 33 of 44
       Appellate Rule 7(B), which permits us to revise a sentence if, after due

       consideration of the trial court’s decision, we find that the sentence is

       “inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the

       offender.” Faith, 131 N.E.3d at 159 (quoting App. R. 7(B)).

[61]   Our role under Appellate Rule 7(B) is to “leaven the outliers,” Faith, 131

       N.E.3d at 159–60 (quoting Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind.

       2008)), and we reserve that authority for exceptional cases, id. at 160 (citing

       Taylor v. State, 86 N.E.3d 157, 165 (Ind. 2017), reh’g denied). When gauging

       inappropriateness under Appellate Rule 7(B), we “focus on the forest—the

       aggregate sentence—rather than the trees—consecutive or concurrent, number

       of counts, or length of the sentence on any individual count.” Brown, 10

       N.E.3d at 8 (citing Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1225). Generally, a trial court’s

       sentencing decision prevails unless it is “overcome by compelling evidence

       portraying in a positive light the nature of the offense . . . and the defendant’s

       character.” Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 111–12 (Ind. 2015). In

       conducting this analysis, “we are not limited to the mitigators and aggravators

       found by the trial court.” Brown, 10 N.E.3d at 4. Importantly for our purposes

       here, our Supreme Court “has not been hesitant to reduce maximum sentences

       for juveniles convicted of murder.” Id. at 7.

[62]   When considering the nature of the offense, we start with the advisory sentence.

       Brown, 10 N.E.3d at 4 (citing Anglemyer, 868 N.E.2d at 494). Here, the trial

       court sentenced Hamilton on his convictions for (1) murder, (2) robbery as a

       Level 3 felony, and (3) an enhancement for use of a firearm. First, a “person
       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-PC-15 | April 12, 2024            Page 34 of 44
       who commits murder shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between forty-five

       (45) and sixty-five (65) years, with the advisory sentence being fifty-five (55) years.”

       I.C. § 35-50-2-3(a) (emphasis added). Second, a “person who commits a Level

       3 felony . . . shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between three (3) and

       sixteen (16) years, with the advisory sentence being nine (9) years.” Id. § 35-50-2-5(b)

       (emphasis added). Finally,

               [i]f the jury . . . finds that the state has proved beyond a
               reasonable doubt that the person knowingly or intentionally used
               a firearm in the commission of the offense . . . , the court may
               sentence the person to an additional fixed term of imprisonment
               of between five (5) years and twenty (20) years.

       Id. § 35-50-2-11(g).

[63]   The trial court sentenced Hamilton to an advisory sentence for both

       convictions. (Sent. Tr. Vol. I at 15.) The trial court enhanced Hamilton’s

       sentence by 10 years for his use of a firearm. (Id.) The trial court ordered the

       sentences to be served consecutively and executed at the Department of

       Correction, resulting in a total sentence of 74 years at the Department of

       Correction. (Id.) Hamilton argues that his aggregate sentence is an outlier

       when compared to other juveniles convicted of murder who have had their

       sentences reduced by the Indiana Supreme Court.

[64]   For instance, in Brown v. State, 16-year-old Brown was convicted of two counts

       of murder and one count of robbery, and the trial court imposed the maximum

       sentence of 65 years for both murder counts and the maximum sentence of 20

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-PC-15 | April 12, 2024                Page 35 of 44
       years for the robbery count, all to be served consecutively, for a total aggregate

       sentence of 150 years. 10 N.E.3d at 3. Our Supreme Court reduced this

       sentence to “an enhanced sentence” of 60 years for both murder counts, to be

       served concurrently, and “an enhanced sentence” of 20 years for robbery to be

       served consecutively, for a total aggregate sentence of 80 years imprisonment.

       10 N.E.3d at 8. Likewise, in Fuller v. State, concerning the same robbery and

       murders as in Brown, our Supreme Court reduced 15-year-old Fuller’s 150-year

       aggregate sentence to a total aggregate sentence of 85 years imprisonment. 9

       N.E.3d 653, 658–59 (Ind. 2014). Our Supreme Court reduced Brown’s and

       Fuller’s sentences in part because their 150-year sentences “forsw[ore]

       altogether the rehabilitative ideal.” Brown, 10 N.E.3d at 8 (quoting Miller, 567

       U.S. 472); Fuller, 9 N.E.3d at 658 (quoting Miller, 567 U.S. 472).

[65]   Hamilton also points to several cases our Supreme Court decided in the 1990s.

       First, in Carter v. State, 711 N.E.2d 835 (Ind. 1999), our Supreme Court reduced

       14-year-old Carter’s 60-year sentence to 50 years for “the brutal murder of a

       seven-year-old girl.” Brown, 10 N.E.3d at 7 (citing Carter, 711 N.E.2d at 836–

       37). Likewise, in Walton v. State, our Supreme Court reduced 16-year-old

       Walton’s 120-year sentence to 80 years for brutally beating his adoptive parents

       to death while they slept, to which he pled guilty but mentally ill. 650 N.E.2d

       1134, 1135, 1137 (Ind. 1995). In Widener v. State, our Supreme Court reduced

       17-year-old Widener’s 70-year sentence to 50 years for conspiracy to commit

       robbery and felony murder, to which he pled guilty. 659 N.E.2d 529, 530–31,

       534 (Ind. 1995).

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-PC-15 | April 12, 2024          Page 36 of 44
[66]   The defendants in Brown, Fuller, Carter, Walton, and Widener did not have their

       sentences enhanced for using a firearm during the commission of their offenses.

       Brown, 10 N.E.3d at 3; Fuller, 9 N.E.3d at 656; Carter, 711 N.E.2d at 836–37;

       Walton, 650 N.E.2d at 1135; Widener, 659 N.E.2d at 530. Further, they all

       received maximum aggregate sentences. Brown, 10 N.E.3d at 3; Fuller, 9

       N.E.3d at 656; Carter, 711 N.E.2d at 836–37; Walton, 650 N.E.2d at 1135;

       Widener, 659 N.E.2d at 530. Here, by contrast, Hamilton was found to have

       used a firearm during the offense, which resulted in an enhanced sentence,8 and

       he did not receive a maximum sentence for any of his offenses; rather, he

       received only the advisory sentences for his murder and robbery convictions,

       and he received a lower-midrange sentence for the firearm enhancement.

[67]   Hamilton next contends that his sentence is an outlier based on credit time.

       “[E]valuation of a defendant’s sentence may include consideration of the

       defendant’s credit time status because this penal consequence was within the

       contemplation of the trial court when it was determining the defendant’s

       sentence.” Sharp v. State, 970 N.E.2d 647, 651 (Ind. 2012). Hamilton primarily

       points to the fact that when Brown and Fuller were originally sentenced, they

       8
         Hamilton asserts, without support, that the State did not pursue use of a firearm enhancements for Brown
       and Fuller despite their eligibility therefor. Appellant’s Br. at 33; see App. R. 46(A)(8)(a) (“Each contention
       must be supported by citations to the authorities, statutes, and the Appendix or parts of the Record on Appeal
       relied on, in accordance with Rule 22.”). Prosecutors have broad discretionary power to choose the persons
       whom they prosecute, Cain v. State, 955 N.E.2d 714, 718 (Ind. 2011) (citing Corcoran v. State, 739 N.E.2d 649
       (Ind. 2000)), and the charges to bring against those persons, Artigas v. State, 122 N.E.3d 1003, 1006 n.5 (Ind.
       Ct. App. 2019) (citing Hendrix v. State, 759 N.E.2d 1045, 1047 (Ind. 2001)). We do not substitute our
       discretion for that of the prosecuting attorney on such matters. Johnson v. State, 675 N.E.2d 678, 683 (Ind.
       1996).

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-PC-15 | April 12, 2024                                 Page 37 of 44
       were entitled to Class I credit time, which is “one (1) day of credit time for each

       day the person is imprisoned for a crime or confined awaiting trial or

       sentencing.” I.C. § 35-50-6-3(b) (2012); see id. § 35-50-6-4(a) (2012); see also id. §

       35-50-6-3(c). Thus, after deducting earned good time credit, Brown will

       actually serve approximately 40 years and Fuller will actually serve

       approximately 42.5 years. See Brown, 10 N.E.3d at 8; Fuller, 9 N.E.3d at 658–

       59; I.C. §§ 35-50-6-3(b), -4(a) (2012).

[68]   However, in 2014, after Brown and Fuller were sentenced but before Hamilton

       committed the instant offense, the Indiana General Assembly revised the

       criminal code to increase the actual time served for the most serious offenses.

       Compare I.C. § 35-50-6-3, with I.C. § 35-50-6-3.1. With Class B credit time,

       which is one day of credit time for every three days served, I.C. § 35-50-6-

       3.1(b), Hamilton will actually serve approximately 55 years.9 Although

       Hamilton received a total aggregate sentence that is less than Brown’s and

       Fuller’s total aggregate sentences, Hamilton’s actual sentence is greater than

       Brown’s and Fuller’s actual sentences. Our legislature intended such a result

       when it modified Indiana’s credit time scheme. Erkins v. State, 13 N.E.3d 400

       (Ind. 2014) (quoting Hendrix v. State, 759 N.E.2d 1045 (Ind. 2001)) (“The best

       evidence of legislative intent is the language of the statute itself . . . .”); compare

       9
         Hamilton may actually serve less than 55 years if he earns educational credit pursuant to Indiana Code
       section 35-50-6-3.3. In fact, Dr. Burnett testified that Hamilton has earned his G.E.D. and participated in
       reformative programs since being incarcerated, which will likely result in Hamilton earning educational
       credit, I.C. § 35-50-6-3.3(a)(3)(A), (b)(3)(D), (d)(1), (d)(8), thereby reducing the amount of time he actually
       serves.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-PC-15 | April 12, 2024                                    Page 38 of 44
       I.C. § 35-50-6-3, with I.C. § 35-50-6-3.1. Due to Hamilton’s additional

       enhancement for use of a firearm and the change in credit time, Hamilton’s

       comparison of his actual sentence to that of Brown’s and Fuller’s is unavailing.

[69]   Based on the record available to Allen for Hamilton’s direct appeal, Hamilton

       did not show that it was significant and obvious from the face of that record

       that his advisory sentence is an outlier among the sentences of other juveniles

       convicted of murder, robbery, or both, especially in light of his use of a firearm

       enhancement. Similarly, based on the record available to Allen for Hamilton’s

       direct appeal, Hamilton did not show that asking an appellate court to revise his

       advisory sentence pursuant to Appellate Rule 7(B) was “clearly more likely to

       result in reversal or an order for a new trial.” Reed, 856 N.E.2d at 1195. As

       such, we cannot say that the trial court clearly erred in finding that Hamilton

       failed to establish that Allen provided ineffective assistance of counsel on this

       ground.

               c. Newly Discovered Evidence

[70]   Hamilton contends that he is entitled to a new sentencing hearing on the basis

       that there is newly discovered evidence concerning his mental health. Post-

       Conviction Rule 1(1)(a)(4) states in relevant part that a “person who has been

       convicted of, or sentenced for, a crime by a court of this state” may file a PCR

       petition based on the alleged existence “of material facts, not previously

       presented and heard, that requires vacation of the . . . sentence in the interest of

       justice.” New evidence mandates a new sentencing hearing only when the

       petitioner demonstrates the following:
       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-PC-15 | April 12, 2024          Page 39 of 44
               (1) the evidence has been discovered since the trial; (2) it is
               material and relevant; (3) it is not cumulative; (4) it is not merely
               impeaching; (5) it is not privileged or incompetent; (6) due
               diligence was used to discover it in time for trial; (7) the evidence
               is worthy of credit; (8) it can be produced upon a retrial of the
               case; and (9) it will probably produce a different result at retrial.

       Kubsch v. State, 934 N.E.2d 1138, 1145 (Ind. 2010) (quoting Taylor v. State, 840

       N.E.2d 324, 329–30 (Ind. 2006)). We analyze “these nine factors with care, as

       the basis for newly discovered evidence should be received with great caution

       and the alleged new evidence carefully scrutinized.” Id. (quoting Taylor, 840

       N.E.2d at 330).

[71]   Hamilton specifically contends that his bipolar disorder diagnosis “is newly

       discovered evidence that should be considered when fashioning a sentence.”

       Appellant’s Br. at 47. Assuming for the sake of argument that Hamilton can

       establish that evidence of his bipolar disorder diagnosis can satisfy the first eight

       factors described above, he has not established that such evidence can satisfy

       the ninth factor. Whereas Dr. Burnett believed within a reasonable degree of

       medical certainty that Hamilton was suffering from bipolar disorder at the time

       of the offense, as discussed above, Dr. Burnett also testified that Hamilton’s

       behavior leading up to the robbery and murder “could be construed to both a

       bipolar episode and/or to youthfulness and/or to substance abuse and/or to

       trauma-related effects.” Tr. Vol. II at 112. Furthermore, Dr. Burnett stated in

       his report that Hamilton’s scores on the MMPI-2 and TSI-2 indicated he was

       exaggerating his symptoms. Because of the minimal value of Dr. Burnett’s

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-PC-15 | April 12, 2024           Page 40 of 44
       testimony, evidence of this diagnosis is unlikely to produce a different result at

       resentencing. Accordingly, the PCR court did not clearly err in finding that

       evidence of Hamilton’s bipolar disorder diagnosis was not newly discovered

       warranting a new sentencing hearing.

       Conclusion
[72]   In sum, the PCR court did not err by denying the Motion and did not err by

       denying Hamilton’s PCR claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel,

       ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, and newly discovered evidence. We

       therefore affirm the PCR court’s decisions on all issues raised.

[73]   Affirmed.

       Crone, J., concurs in part and concurs in result in part with separate opinion.
       Brown, J., dissents with separate opinion.

       ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
       Stacy R. Uliana
       Bargersville, Indiana

       ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
       Theodore E. Rokita
       Indiana Attorney General
       Evan Matthew Comer
       Deputy Attorney General
       Indianapolis, Indiana

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-PC-15 | April 12, 2024         Page 41 of 44
       Crone, Judge, concurring in part and concurring in result in part.

[74]   I fully concur in the lead opinion’s resolution of issue 2. Regarding issue 1,

       however, I believe that Post-Conviction Rule 1(4)(b) controls here and thus it is

       inappropriate to undertake an independent review of the PCR judge’s decision

       to deny Hamilton’s motion for change of judge under CJC Rule 2.11(A). As the

       Mathews court persuasively reasoned with respect to former Indiana Criminal

       Rule 12(B),1 allowing CJC Rule 2.11(A) to serve as “a freestanding mechanism

       for relief” would “effectively nullify” Post-Conviction Rule 1(4)(b) and “usurp

       the exclusive supervisory authority of our supreme court over judicial conduct.”

       64 N.E.3d at 1254, 1255. Post-Conviction Rule 1(4)(b) and CJC Rule 2.11(A)

       might encompass some of the same considerations regarding judicial bias, but

       the standards for evaluating bias under those rules are different, and we should

       refrain from stepping into the shoes of our supreme court. Accordingly, I

       concur only in result as to issue 1.

       1
        Former Criminal Rule 12(B) is substantially similar to Post-Conviction Rule 1(4)(b). Effective January 1,
       2024, Criminal Rule 12(B) was amended and renumbered as Criminal Rule 2.4(B).

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-PC-15 | April 12, 2024                               Page 42 of 44
       Brown, Judge, dissenting.

[75]   I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision that the post-conviction court

       did not err in denying Hamilton’s motion for change of judge. “The public

       entrusts the judiciary ‘to provide a tribunal as superior to influence as possible,

       in which [a] claim might be decided.’” Matter of Guardianship of Garrard, 624

       N.E.2d 68, 70 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993) (quoting Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6

       Wheat.) 264, 382, (1821) (Marshall, C.J.)). “In order to have faith that our

       judicial system operates providently, the public must have confidence in the

       procedure by which our courts render decisions.” Id. See also Ind. Code of

       Judicial Conduct Rule 2.11 (“A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any

       proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality[] might reasonably be questioned .

       . . .”); Ind. Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 2.11 cmt. 8(1) (“Because of the

       important nature of maintaining confidence in the judiciary, a judge should,

       even over the agreement of the parties, disqualify himself/herself in any

       situation when reasonable minds with knowledge of all the relevant

       circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry would conclude that the

       judge’s integrity, impartiality, or independence to serve as a judge is

       impaired.”).

[76]   Hamilton alleged that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel from

       Bohdan based upon multiple allegations. In his affidavit attached to his

       Verified Motion for Change of Judge, Hamilton asserted that he was charged

       with multiple offenses, including murder, in cause number 02D06-1608-MR-5,

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-PC-15 | April 12, 2024          Page 43 of 44
       Bohdan represented him at trial, and he believed Bohdan was an Allen County

       magistrate working for Judge Gull who presided over his case and sentencing.

[77]   At the December 10, 2021 post-conviction hearing at which Judge Gull

       presided, Bohdan testified that he was employed as a magistrate in the Allen

       Superior Court, which was the same court that was holding the post-conviction

       hearing. He also indicated Judge Gull employed him.

[78]   In light of Bohdan’s representation of Hamilton at trial, the multiple allegations

       of ineffective assistance asserted against Bohdan, and the relationship between

       Bohdan as a current magistrate employed by the post-conviction judge, I

       conclude that the facts recited in the affidavit support a rational inference of

       bias or prejudice. While I express no opinion on the issues of ineffective

       assistance of both trial and appellate counsel, I note that these claims as argued

       by Hamilton appear to present close determinations, and I would find that the

       appearance of impropriety requires reversal.

[79]   For the foregoing reasons, I would find the post-conviction court erred in

       denying Hamilton’s motion for change of judge and would reverse and remand

       for the issues to be decided by a new judge.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-PC-15 | April 12, 2024          Page 44 of 44