Court Opinion

ID: 9713524
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:16:50.865952+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:19.128485
License: Public Domain

HOFFMAN, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent, The alleged conflicts in the present case did not occur at the most crucial point in the proceedings, *1317the trial. Further, they did not rise to the level of those apparent in Zembowski, supra, and Tate, supra.
Taylor and Williams were scheduled for a bench trial on May 831, 1978. On the morning of the trial, Taylor entered into a plea agreement with the State. The State recommended dismissal of Taylor's armed robbery charge in exchange for a guilty plea to attempted theft. The factual basis for Taylor's guilty plea revealed only that Taylor was aware that Williams had a gun in his possession prior to stopping at the gas station. While Taylor was using the restroom, Williams robbed and injured the gas station attendant. Taylor drove the car from the scene, then Williams told Taylor about the robbery.
The evidence presented at Williams' trial unequivocally established that Williams entered the gas station and aimed the gun at the attendant. Williams hit the attendant several times with the gun during the course of the robbery. The witnesses at trial corroborated Taylor's version of the incident as it was related at Taylor's guilty plea hearing. However, Taylor did not testify at Williams' trial. Williams did testify in his own behalf and admitted striking the attendant and taking money.
It is difficult to perceive of any conflict in the representation when the parties and the witnesses all agree in substance to the course of events. Additionally, Taylor's guilty plea hearing and Williams' bench trial were separate proceedings. Counsel was free to offer any evidence or argument to benefit Williams at Williams' trial. Further, the case was tried before the court without the intervention of a jury; thus, it is presumed that the court considered only properly admissible evidence in arriving at a decision. See, Matter of Adoption of Thomas (1982), Ind.App., 431 N.E.2d 506, 510. Williams makes no showing to rebut that presumption.
Any appearance of a conflict arose at the sentencing hearing when counsel stated that Taylor was a follower and got into the situation with another man who was potentially: more dangerous. The court found that the aggravating circumstances far outweighed the mitigating circumstances and enhanced Taylor's sentence to the maximum allowed for attempted theft.
At Williams' sentencing a pre-sentence investigation report and a diagnostic evaluation together with Williams' prior criminal history revealed Williams' potential volitility. On the basis. of that information the court determined that the sentence should be enhanced for Williams also. Williams did not receive the maximum sentence. Al though somewhat out of the ordinary, counsel's statement of the obvious at Taylor's sentencing did not affect Williams' term of imprisonment; thus, the statement was not prejudicial.
Accordingly, I would vote to affirm the denial of Williams' petition for post-conviection relief,