Court Opinion

ID: 9505713
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 20:15:30.786737+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:44.420248
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. Justice Dickson’s opinion uses procedural grounds to dispose of Minnick’s two most substantial claims to post-conviction relief: that in imposing the death penalty the trial court (1) improperly invoked non-statutory aggravating circumstances and (2) improperly overrode a jury recommendation against death. I believe that we should examine the merits of both claims. And I would resolve the merits of both claims in Minnick’s favor,
j
I readily acknowledge that many claims— perhaps the vast majority of claims—for post-conviction relief are properly resolved on procedural grounds. This is as it should be because, as we often say, post-conviction proceedings are not appeals but specialized, quasi-eivil actions in which only narrowly circumscribed claims are available. Ind.Post-Conviction Rule 1(1); see Lowery v. State, 640 N.E.2d 1031, 1036 (Ind.1994) (the post-conviction remedy is not a substitute for an appeal), cert. denied 516 U.S. 992, 116 S.Ct. 525, 133 L.Ed.2d 432 (1995); Weatherford v. State, 619 N.E.2d 915, 916 (Ind.1993) (post-conviction procedures do not provide a “super appeal”). In the most general of terms, claims for post-conviction relief are limited to those demonstrably unavailable at the time of trial and direct appeal and those of deprivation of the constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel. See Canaan v. State, 683 N.E.2d 227, 235 n. 6 (Ind.1997), reh’g denied, cert. denied — U.S.-, 118 S.Ct. 2064, 141 L.Ed.2d 141 (1998). Both of Min-nick’s principal claims—improper trial court invocation of non-statutory aggravating circumstances and override of the jury’s recommendation against death—were addressed in Minnick’s direct appeal and resolved against him. Minnick v. State, 544 N.E.2d 471, 482 (Ind.1989). In almost all circumstances, the doctrine of res judicata proscribes relit-igation of such claims in post-conviction proceedings. But I believe that circumstances of these two claims unique to this case place them outside the res judicata bar.
A
In his direct appeal, Minnick argued that non-statutory aggravators were improperly used to sentence him to death. This court, by a vote of 3-2, explicitly rejected Minnick’s claim. Minnick, 544 N.E.2d at 482. Minnick held that “in a capital sentencing the trial court may consider other general felony statutory aggravators even if not included *762among the death penalty statutory aggrava-tors, as long as at least one of the capital statutory aggravators is proven.” Bellmore v. State, 602 N.E.2d 111, 128 (Ind.1992) (footnote omitted).
Bivins v. State, 642 N.E.2d 928 (Ind.1994), overruled the holding in Minnick In Bivins, we held that “[w]hen the death sentence is sought, courts must henceforth limit the aggravating circumstances eligible for consideration to those specified in the death penalty statute.” Id. at 965. The question then is whether the Bivins rule should be applied retroactively to Minnick’s ease. As Justice Dickson’s opinion points out, there is language in Bivins itself to the effect that it should not be applied retroactively. The Bivins opinion pronounces that it is a new rule of constitutional law, id. at 956; that it is not available to petitioners whose cases have became final before the rule was announced, id. at 956 (citing Daniels v. State, 561 N.E.2d 487, 489 (Ind.1990)); and that it did not “fall within either of the two narrow exceptions to the non-retroactivity of new rules on collateral review,” id. at 956 n. 12 (citing Daniels, 561 N.E.2d at 490). But Bivins was before us on direct appeal and so the court’s pronouncements on retroactivity were obiter dicta.1 I fully subscribe to the doctrine of non-retroactivity announced in Daniels. See, e.g., State v. Mohler, 694 N.E.2d 1129 (Ind.1998). And while I believe that in most circumstances the Bivins rule should be subject to the Daniels bar, I would not so hold here.
In Daniels, we adopted as our state retro-activity rule the same retroactivity rule used by the U.S. Supreme Court for reviewing habeas corpus petitions for relief from state judgments. Daniels, 561 N.E.2d at 489 (citing Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 109 S.Ct. 1060, 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989), and Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302, 109 S.Ct. 2934, 106 L.Ed.2d 256 (1989)). In support of our decision to follow the federal rule, we observed that the purposes for which Indiana affords the remedy of post-conviction relief are substantially similar to those for which the federal writ of habeas corpus is made available—finality and the efficient administration of justice. Mohler, 694 N.E.2d at 1132; Daniels, 561 N.E.2d at 489. This is certainly true. But the federal rule is also grounded in principles of comity—federalism’s interest in respecting state court judgments. See Teague, 489 U.S. at 308, 309, 109 S.Ct. 1060. As Professor Hutton has noted, the absence of the interest in comity differentiates the constraints on federal and state retroactivity rules. Mary C. Hutton, Retroactivity in the States: The Impact of Teague v. Lane on State Post-Conviction Remedies, 44 Ala. L.Rev. 421, 436-37 (1993).
In sum, a state’s retroactivity rule need not be the same as the federal and, because the constraints on the federal and state systems differ, there may be situations where they should not be the same. I think this case is an example of the latter. I would hold that in Indiana, the rule of non-retroac-tivity should not apply to claims for post-conviction relief in cases in which a sentence of death has been imposed and the petitioner who seeks retroactive application of this court’s new rule raised precisely the same claim in his or her direct appeal and had it rejected by this court. That is, where this court adopts a new rule which overrules the explicit prior adverse determination of this court in a particular defendant’s death penalty case, that new rule ought to be retroactive to that particular litigant. I view this as an extremely narrow exception which would not apply to those petitioners who did not explicitly raise the issue in their direct appeal. These litigants never felt the impingement of the old rule and so there is no injustice in denying application of the new rule to them. But I cannot justify on grounds of either finality or efficient administration of justice the refusal to allow a capital litigant the benefit of a rule that that very litigant timely raised and argued to us on direct appeal.
B
I also believe Justice Dickson’s opinion gives inappropriately abrupt treatment to Minnick’s claim that the trial court erred in disregarding the jury’s recommendation that *763he not be sentenced to death. At the time Minnick filed his direct appeal with us, the state of the law was that neither the trial court nor the court on appeal had any obligation to give deference or special consideration to a jury recommendation against death. Schiro v. State, 451 N.E.2d 1047, 1054 (Ind.1983). However, subsequent to the docketing of Minniek’s appeal but before it was decided, this court decided Martinez Chavez v. State, 534 N.E.2d 731 (Ind.1989). Martinez Chavez articulated a new standard of review for cases where the trial court imposes a death sentence notwithstanding the jury’s unanimous recommendation against death.2 Despite the fact that Min-nick had not briefed the Martinez Chavez issue, the majority addressed it sua sponte and held that Minnick was not entitled to relief under the new Martinez Chavez rule. Justice Dickson’s opinion today finds this determination to be res judicata, barring our consideration of it.
Because we applied Martinez Chavez adversely to Minnick on direct appeal without his having the opportunity to present an argument in his own behalf, I believe that we should proceed to the merits of his claim and not bar it on procedural grounds.3
II
Proceeding to the merits of Minnick’s Bivins claim, it is clear that the trial court in determining Minnick’s sentence considered aggravating circumstances not designated by our legislature as appropriate for the death sentence.4 The sentencing court in a death penalty ease must limit the aggravating circumstances eligible for consideration in death penalty cases to those specified in the death penalty statute. Bivins, 642 N.E.2d at 955.
As to the merits of Minnick’s jury recommendation claim, we should employ the review methodology most recently articulated in Peterson v. State:
During appellate review of a death sentence where the jury has recommended against death, two separate and distinct issues are always presented for our consideration: (i) whether the trial court sentencing statement demonstrates due consideration of the jury recommendation; and (ii) whether this Court, upon independent reconsideration of a jury recommendation against death, nevertheless concludes that the death penalty is appropriate.
*764Peterson, 674 N.E.2d 628, 540 (Ind.1996) (citation and added emphasis omitted).
Here it cannot be fairly said that the trial court sentencing statement demonstrates due consideration of the jury recommendation. There is no mention of the jury recommendation in the sentencing order. (R. at 306-307.) The trial court’s oral sentencing statement was prefaced by the single sentence: “The record should show then that the court, as required by statute, has considered the jury’s recommendation.” (R. at 370.) This single sentence was not elaborated upon and there is no further oral or written reference to the jury’s recommendation or the trial court’s reasons for declining to follow the jury’s recommendation. Cf. Saylor v. State, 686 N.E.2d 80, 87 (Ind.1997) (where, “as in Peterson, [674 N.E.2d at 542,] the trial court gave careful and extensive consideration to the jury’s recommendation and articulated reasons for not following it”), reh’g denied, petition for cert. filed (May 1, 1998) (No. 97-8913).
As noted supra, we independently consider a jury recommendation against death and determine whether the death penalty is appropriate. Saylor, 686 N.E.2d at 88 (citing Peterson, 674 N.E.2d at 540). Here the following factors lead me to the conclusion that the death penalty is not appropriate. First, there was no finding by the trial court that the murder of which Minnick was convicted was intentional.5 Neither the trial court’s oral statement at sentencing6 nor its sentencing order7 makes the requisite finding of intentionality. Second, there are two mitigating circumstances, each of which I would place in the moderate range—Minnick’s age at the time of the crime and his lack of significant criminal history. Minnick was 18 at the time of the crime, a factor the trial court recognized as mitigating. He did have a record of offenses committed as a juvenile (for which he had been incarcerated at the Indiana Boys’ School) but none of the offenses were violent.8 Third, as discussed, the jury recommended that the death penalty not be imposed. This is particularly significant because this is the same jury that unanimously found the defendant guilty of murder and was prepared to accept its role as the “conscience of the community” in rejecting the State’s request for the death penalty. Saylor, 686 N.E.2d at 87 (quoting Peterson, 674 N.E.2d at 543).
Unlike the Saylor and Peterson cases where I joined the majority in affirming death sentences notwithstanding jury recommendations against death, here (i) the trial court improperly relied upon non-statutory aggravating circumstances, (ii) there was no finding by the trial court of the requisite intentionality necessary to support statutory aggravating circumstance relied upon, and (iii) there are two mitigating circumstances, each of medium weight. When these three considerations are juxtaposed with the unani-. mous rejection by the jury of the State’s death penalty request, with all that such rejection imports, I cannot conclude that the death penalty is appropriate. At a minimum, I would remand for new judicial sentencing.

. I expressed my reservations about the inclusion of this language in my separate opinion in Bivins v. State, 642 N.E.2d 928, 960 (Ind.1994) (Sullivan, J., concurring in part and concurring in result).

. In order to impose a death sentence in such circumstances, we held that “the facts justifying a death sentence should be so clear and convincing that virtually no reasonable person could disagree that death was appropriate in light of the offender and his crime.” Martinez Chavez v. State, 534 N.E.2d 731, 735 (Ind.1989); see also Martinez Chavez v. State, 539 N.E.2d 4, 5 (Ind.1989) (opinion on reh'g) (“A trial judge can proceed to impose a penalty of death [when the jury has unanimously recommended against death] only ... when all the facts available to the court point so clearly to the imposition of the death penalty that the jury’s recommendation is unreasonable.”) Minnick was entitled to the benefit of the Martinez Chavez rule because his direct appeal was pending at the time Martinez Chavez was decided. See Daniels v. State, 561 N.E.2d 487, 488 (Ind.1990).
We have subsequently modified our standard for reviewing the propriety of a death sentence where the jury has unanimously recommended against death. See generally Peterson v. State; 674 N.E.2d 528, 543 (Ind.1996) (Sullivan, J., concurring), reh'g denied, cert. denied - U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 858, 139 L.Ed.2d 757. This standard will be utilized in part II, infra, of this dissent.

. Cf. Kennedy v. State, 578 N.E.2d 633 (Ind.1991). The Kennedy direct appeal came to this court in the same procedural posture as Min-nick’s. Each appellant had been sentenced to death by the respective trial court notwithstanding the respective jury's unanimous recommendations against death. Martinez Chavez was decided while each case was pending on direct appeal. The Kennedy case was remanded to the trial court for reconsideration of the sentence in light of Martinez Chavez. Id., 578 N.E.2d at 637. As noted, the Minnick case was not remanded; this Court proceeded to the merits sua sponte. Minnick, 544 N.E.2d at 482.

.The trial court's sentencing order listed the following aggravating circumstances not specified in the death penalty statute: (1) that "the decedent was in her own home where she had every right to be secure from William Minnick;” (2) that “the crime mutilated her body and defiled her even after death;" (3) that "the crime was the kind of horrendous crime that the legislature anticipated when it listed rape or robbery as aggravating circumstances and, therefore, ... that the circumstances of the crime, the violence of the attempted electrocution, the strangling and the knifing are those kinds of aggravating circumstances; and (4) the rape and after death violation of Martha Payne's body.” (R. at 306.)

. The statutory aggravating circumstance relied upon by the trial court and the State requires a finding that "[t]he defendant committed the murder by intentionally killing the victim while committing or attempting to commit ... rape, or robbery.” Ind.Code § 35-50-2-9(B)(1) (1982) (emphasis added).

. "Pursuant to Indiana Code § 35-50-2-9 I find beyond a reasonable doubt, based on the evidence presented at the trial, that William A. Minnick murdered Martha Payne while committing rape and robbery." (R. at 370-71.)

. "Pursuant to Indiana Code § 35-50-2-9 the court finds beyond a reasonable doubt, based on the evidence presented at the trial, that William A. Minnick murdered Martha Payne while committing rape and robbery.” (R. at 306.)

.The probation officer's testimony at sentencing suggests an adjudication of delinquency with respect to a charge of burglary and theft and additional charges that were never adjudicated on three separate occasions of (i) theft and forgery; (ii) three counts of theft; and (iii) burglary. The probation officer also testified that Minnick had once escaped from the Boys’ School and once from the county jail. (R. at 344.) The probation officer testified on cross-examination that in her investigation of Minnick, she was "unable to find any matters where he had committed any type of alleged criminal offense involving any crimes of violence.” (R. at 345.)