Court Opinion

ID: 9727077
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:19:11.235916+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:33.342189
License: Public Domain

CHEZEM, Presiding Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. In a post-conviction relief proceeding, the defendant has the burden of proving the fact of the error he alleges as well as, the alleged harm. In this case Defendant has the burden of proving that the attorneys who represented him both at trial and on appeal did not recognize that the instruction complained of was erroneous. He also must prove that their strategy was so poor as to be ineffective assistance of counsel. Finally, the defendant has the burden of proving that but for counsel’s errors with respect to the erroneous instruction, the result of his trial would have been different. See Layton v. State (1986), Ind., 499 N.E.2d 202, 205.
Whether or not trial and appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance to this Defendant is a question of fact. Both attorneys testified they did not remember if they knew the voluntary manslaughter instruction was an incorrect statement of law, but they wanted the instruction read because in their judgment, it fit the defendant’s theory of his defense. The judge who presides over the post-conviction relief hearing possesses exclusive authority to weigh the evidence and determine the credibility of the witnesses, and this court will not set aside the trial court’s ruling on a post-conviction petition unless the evidence is without conflict and leads solely to a result different than that reached by the trial court. Stewart v. State (1988), Ind., 517 N.E.2d 1230, 1231. The trial court made no finding that trial and appellate counsel were ineffective. Whether or not counsel failed to recognize the error of the instruction and whether or not such failure harmed the defendant is a factual question and more properly determined by the trial court; for us do to so requires that we invade the province of the trial court. Therefore, I would remand for a finding by the trial court whether: (1) the trial and appellate counsel failed to recognize the incorrectness of the instruction (2) that such failure constituted incompetency of counsel rather than strategic error, and (3) that the result of the defendant’s trial *1262would have been different but for the erroneous instruction.