Court Opinion

ID: 9518124
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 00:44:16.663641+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:27:30.070208
License: Public Domain

KIRSCH, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The majority holds that Sharkey's counsel was ineffective because of counsel's failure to recognize that "[Thhe holding in Sills was contradicted by our supreme court in Outlaw v. State, 484 N.E.2d 10 (Ind.1985), a case which came after Sills and was in effect at the time of Sharkey's trial." Opinion, p. 948. The majority continues: "If Sharkey's trial counsel had tendered instructions on Involuntary Manslaughter or Reckless Homicide, the trial court could have determined under Outlaw that it was required to give the instructions." Opinion, p. 948 (emphasis added). If the majority is correct, then it necessarily follows that the post-conviction court, presided over by an experienced and respected trial judge, numerous panels of this court and our supreme court itself must be similarly ineffective because each of these entities has declined to require such instructions.
Sharkey was tried and convicted in 1988. Sills was not expressly overruled until 1995. Wright v. State, 658 N.E.2d 563, 570 (Ind.1995). Although in Wright our supreme court stated "it should have been apparent" that Sills was overruled by Lynch v. State, 571 N.E.2d 537 (Ind.1991), Lynch was not decided until 1991, three years after Shar-key's trial and conviction. In at least eleven decisions of the Indiana Supreme Court3 and *944four decisions of this court4 which were decided after Outlaw, the continued validity of Sills was recognized; these decisions were expressly overruled by our supreme court in Wright, 658 N.E.2d at 570. In so doing, the supreme court did not cite its decision in Outlaw on which the majority today relies; nor did our supreme court mention its Sills decision in Outlaw. - Moreover, in Wright itself, our supreme court reversed the decision of this court which was based upon Sills. See Wright v. State, 643 N.E.2d 417, 419 (Ind.Ct.App.1994).
In Wright, our supreme court wrote to resolve the "unfortunate confusion" that had arisen and to avoid "further confusion" and so that "any ambiguity and, hence, Sills's ... vitality come to an end." 658 N.E.2d at 565, 566, 567. In the face of this confusion and ambiguity, trial counsel should not be held ineffective for failing to anticipate Sills demise. See Webb v. State, 655 N.E.2d 1259, 1261 (Ind.Ct.App.1995) ("[Clounsel is not required to prophesy future court rulings and act in accordance with them.") I would affirm the post conviction court in all respects.

. See Avance v. State, 567 N.E.2d 1149 (Ind.1991); Reinbold v. State, 555 N.E.2d 463 (Ind.1990); Yawn v. State, 539 N.E.2d 473 (Ind.1989); Macon v. State, 529 NE.2d 343 (Ind.1988); Decker v. State, 528 NE2d 1119 (Ind.1988); Wedmore v. State, 519 N.E.2d 546 (Ind.1988); Mueller v. State, 517 N.E.2d 788 (Ind.1988); Elmore v. State, 515 N.E.2d 1388 (Ind.1987); Majko v. State, 503 N.E.2d 898 (Ind.1987); Dorsey v. State, 490 N.E.2d 260 (Ind.1986); and Vincent v. State, 489 N.E.2d 49 (1986).

. See Robertson v. State, 650 N.E.2d 1177 (Ind.Ct.App.1995), trans. denied; Whitt v. State, 645 N.E.2d 677 (Ind.Ct.App.1995); Johnson v. State, 553 N.E.2d 187 (Ind.Ct.App.1990); and Crawford v. State, 502 NE2d 1361 (Ind.Ct.App.1987) trans. denied.