Court Opinion

ID: 9534907
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:43:32.398062+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:07.545570
License: Public Domain

BARNES, Judge,
concurring in result with separate opinion.
I respectfully concur in result with the majority's opinion. In arguing that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to Martina's and Brenda's statements, Pa-lacios had the burden of establishing that, had trial counsel objected to the statements, the objection would have been sustained. See Pennycuff v. State, 745 N.E.2d 804, 812 (Ind.2001) ("'When an ineffective assistance claim is predicated on counsel's failure to interpose an objection, appellant has the burden to show that a proper objection would have been sustained by the trial court.'" (citation omitted)). Palacios, however, only argues that the statements at issue are hearsay. He makes no attempt to establish that they do not fall into the hearsay exeeptions set out in Indiana Evidence Rule 803. In the absence of such an argument, it is my opinion that Palacios has not shown a hearsay objection would have been sustained and, therefore, has not established he received ineffective assistance of counsel.
To hold otherwise puts the burden on the State to analyze all potential exceptions and show that the objection would have not been sustained. This is contrary to our well established standard of review. Because Palacios has not met his burden of proof, I believe it is unnecessary for us to determine the admissibility of the out of court statements on the merits, a determination that to me is not needed and unnecessary to reach the correct legal conclusion.
I specifically reserve judgment on the analysis made by the majority on the hearsay issue. I agree with the majority's conclusion that Palacios has not established ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel's failure to object to the out of court statements. I also agree with the majority's analysis of Palacios's other ineffective assistance of counsel claim and his insufficient evidence claim. Thus, I, too, vote to affirm Palacios's conviction.