Court Opinion

ID: 9897353
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:10:32.001087+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:46.011875
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                           Jun 29 2023, 8:42 am

                                                                               CLERK
                                                                           Indiana Supreme Court
                                                                              Court of Appeals
                                                                                and Tax Court

APPELLANT PRO SE                                           ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Steven E. Ingalls, Jr.                                     Theodore E. Rokita
Carlisle, Indiana                                          Indiana Attorney General
                                                           Caroline G. Templeton
                                                           Supervising Deputy
                                                           Attorney General
                                                           Indianapolis, Indiana

                                            IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Steven E. Ingalls, Jr.,                                    June 29, 2023
Appellant-Petitioner,                                      Court of Appeals Case No.
                                                           22A-PC-2431
        v.                                                 Appeal from the Morgan Superior
                                                           Court
State of Indiana,                                          The Honorable Sara A. Dungan,
Appellee-Respondent                                        Judge
                                                           Trial Court Cause No.
                                                           55D03-2005-PC-672

                                Opinion by Judge Weissmann
                               Judges Bailey and Brown concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-PC-2431 | June 29, 2023                                  Page 1 of 12
      Weissmann, Judge.

[1]   Steven E. Ingalls, Jr. asked for a jury trial at the initial hearing in his

      misdemeanor criminal mischief case. But due to his trial attorneys’ subsequent

      failure to submit a timely written request for one, the trial court tried Ingalls

      without a jury. Though Ingalls tried to appeal, his case was dismissed because

      his appellate attorney missed the filing deadline. Ingalls now claims ineffective

      assistance of both trial and appellate counsel. Considering that Ingalls’s

      counsels’ deficient performance led to the violation of his right to a jury trial,

      we reverse the trial court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief.

      Facts
[2]   In June 2018, the State charged Ingalls with Class B misdemeanor criminal

      mischief for allegedly carving initials on the door of a courtroom holding cell

      and for writing on the cell wall in ink. At Ingalls’s initial hearing, the trial court

      appointed counsel for Ingalls and set his case for a bench trial. When Ingalls

      requested “a fast and speedy trial by [j]ury,” the court told Ingalls that his newly

      appointed counsel would have to file a motion for one.

[3]   Ingalls’s first attorney quickly withdrew his appearance due to a conflict, and

      the trial court immediately appointed successor counsel. Ingalls’s new attorney

      entered his appearance and, a few weeks later, wrote to Ingalls using an

      Indianapolis address. Ingalls was housed elsewhere at the Indiana Department

      of Correction, and the letter was returned undelivered. Counsel therefore wrote

      Ingalls again. In his letter, counsel advised Ingalls that he would be found guilty

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-PC-2431 | June 29, 2023             Page 2 of 12
      at trial. But apparently upon learning of Ingalls’s desire to be tried by a jury,

      counsel requested one by filing a motion for jury trial. This request, however,

      came about a month after the deadline for filing a motion for jury trial, and the

      trial court denied Ingalls’s request as untimely.

[4]   At Ingalls’s bench trial, Ingalls reiterated his request to be tried by a jury. In

      support, Ingalls offered his affidavit stating he had written to his first attorney

      right after the initial hearing and directed his attorney to move for a jury trial.

      The trial court again denied Ingalls’s motion for jury trial and proceeded with a

      bench trial. Ingalls was convicted, and the trial court imposed a suspended

      sentence of 60 days. The court then appointed counsel to represent Ingalls in

      appealing his conviction.

[5]   In his appeal, Ingalls argued that the trial court committed fundamental error

      by denying Ingalls’s request for a jury trial after the court failed to advise him of

      the consequences of not timely requesting one. Ingalls also alleged that he

      received ineffective assistance of trial counsel due to their failure to timely move

      for a jury trial. Ingalls’s appellate counsel, however, filed the notice of appeal

      one day late, and this Court dismissed the case without reaching the merits.

      Ingalls v. State, No. 19A-CR-950, 2020 WL 1684094, *1 (Ind. Ct. App. April 7,

      2020) (mem.).

[6]   Ingalls, proceeding pro se, petitioned for post-conviction relief, alleging that he

      lost his constitutional right to a jury trial through the ineffective assistance of

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-PC-2431 | June 29, 2023            Page 3 of 12
      both trial and appellate counsel. The post-conviction court denied Ingalls relief,

      finding he did not prove any of his attorneys were ineffective.

      Discussion and Decision
[7]   On appeal, Ingalls argues that the post-conviction court erroneously rejected his

      ineffective assistance of counsel claims related to his second trial attorney and

      his appellate counsel. To gain reversal, Ingalls must establish clear error—that

      is, that the evidence as a whole leads unerringly and unmistakably to a

      conclusion opposite that reached by the trial court. Weatherford v. State, 619

      N.E.2d 915, 917 (Ind. 1993). We accept the post-conviction court’s findings of

      fact unless clearly erroneous but do not defer to its legal conclusions. Coleman v.

      State, 741 N.E.2d 697, 700 (Ind. 2000).

[8]   Our analysis of Ingalls’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims is guided by a

      two-part test. First, Ingalls must establish that counsel’s performance was

      deficient. Kubsch v. State, 934 N.E.2d 1138, 1147 (Ind. 2010). “This requires a

      showing that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of

      reasonableness and that ‘counsel made errors so serious that ‘counsel’ was not

      functioning as counsel guaranteed to the defendant by the Sixth Amendment.’”

      Id. (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)).

[9]   Second, Ingalls must prove that counsel’s deficient performance prejudiced the

      defense. Id. This second requirement requires proof that counsel’s errors were

      so serious as to deprive him of a fair trial. Id. Counsel’s performance is

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-PC-2431 | June 29, 2023            Page 4 of 12
       presumed effective, and Ingalls must offer strong and convincing evidence to

       overcome this presumption. Id.

       I. Right to Jury Trial in Misdemeanor Case
[10]   The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section

       13 of the Indiana Constitution guarantee all criminal defendants the right to a

       jury trial. This right is automatic for anyone charged with a felony. Carmouche v.

       State, 188 N.E.3d 482, 485 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022). By contrast, the jury trial right

       of a misdemeanor defendant is not self-executing. “[A] defendant charged with

       a misdemeanor must demand a jury trial and may waive that right by inaction.”

       Wiley v. State, 150 N.E.3d 710, 714 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020).

[11]   Indiana Criminal Rule 22 controls requests for jury trials in misdemeanor

       prosecutions. It states:

               A defendant charged with a misdemeanor may demand trial by
               jury by filing a written demand therefor not later than ten (10)
               days before his first scheduled trial date. The failure of a
               defendant to demand a trial by jury as required by this rule shall
               constitute a waiver by him of trial by jury unless the defendant
               has not had at least fifteen (15) days advance notice of his
               scheduled trial date and of the consequences of his failure to
               demand a trial by jury.

               The trial court shall not grant a demand for a trial by jury filed
               after the time fixed has elapsed except upon the written
               agreement of the state and defendant, which agreement shall be
               filed with the court and made a part of the record. If such
               agreement is filed, then the trial court may, in its discretion, grant
               a trial by jury.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-PC-2431 | June 29, 2023            Page 5 of 12
       Ind. Crim. Rule 22.

[12]   However, a lack of written request is not the only factor a trial court must

       consider in determining if a defendant has properly waived his constitutional

       right to trial by jury in a misdemeanor case. A trial court must ensure the

       defendant:

                (1) was advised of the right to a jury trial; (2) had at least fifteen
                days advance notice of the trial date; (3) was advised of the need
                to file a written demand for a jury trial at least ten days before the
                first scheduled trial date and that failure to do so will result in
                waiver of the right; and (4) understood the advisements.

       Dadouch v. State, 126 N.E.3d 802, 804 (Ind. 2019).

[13]   The trial court denied Ingalls’s jury trial request only because it was tardy. But

       that does not end the inquiry. Absent here is the third element under Dadouch

       —an advisement about the deadline for filing a written demand for a jury trial

       and the consequences of failing to timely file.

[14]   From the record, it appears the trial court never advised Ingalls about his jury

       trial right.1 The court merely acknowledged at the initial hearing, in response to

       Ingalls’s verbal request for a jury trial, that Ingalls had a right to a jury trial. The

       court told Ingalls that he would have to submit a written request for a jury trial

       1
        Though Ingalls was advised of his rights through a video that he viewed before his initial hearing, the record
       does not specifically identify this video or its contents. Thus, the record does not reveal whether or how the
       video informed Ingalls about his right to a jury trial.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-PC-2431 | June 29, 2023                                 Page 6 of 12
       through newly appointed counsel, who was not present. No discussion of

       Criminal Rule 22, its deadlines, and the consequences of waiver occurred. And

       as Ingalls’s claims of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel reveal,

       Ingalls’s trial attorneys were similarly silent until it was too late to meet

       Criminal Rule 22’s requirements.

       II. Ineffective Assistance of Trial Counsel
[15]   The gist of Ingalls’s claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel is that his

       second trial attorney’s deficient performance, rather than Ingalls’s own actions,

       resulted in an untimely request for a jury trial and, ultimately, a purported

       waiver of his jury trial right. We conclude the record supports his claim.

[16]   The record reveals no communications to Ingalls from his counsel before the

       deadline for a jury trial request expired. “It is the duty of counsel, whether

       appointed or retained, to afford [their] client[s] full and adequate representation

       and consultation.” Conley v. State, 284 N.E.2d 803, 808, 259 Ind. 29 (1972). This

       duty imposed on defense counsel in criminal prosecutions includes the

       affirmative obligation of informing the defendant of his constitutional rights.

       Id.; Kindle v. State, 313 N.E.2d 721, 727, 161 Ind. App. 14 (2014); see also Ind.

       Professional Conduct Rules 1.4(a)-(b) (requiring counsel to “reasonably consult

       with the client about the means by which the client’s objectives are to be

       accomplished,” “keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the

       matter,” and “explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the

       client to make informed decisions regarding the representation”).

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-PC-2431 | June 29, 2023            Page 7 of 12
[17]   Only upon this full consultation and explanation “can a defendant intelligently

       and voluntarily make those decisions that are his, and his alone to make,”

       including “waivers of constitutionally protected rights such as the right to trial

       by jury.” Lyles v. State, 382 N.E.2d 991, 993, 178 Ind. App. 398 (1978). This

       “constitutional right to participate in the making of decisions which are

       fundamental to [the accused’s] defense” includes the decision to waive trial by

       jury. Dew v. State, 843 N.E.2d 556, 565 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (quoting Johnson v.

       Duckworth, 793 F.2d 898, 900 (7th Cir. 1986)).

[18]   We agree with Ingalls that he was deprived of that right of participation. Any

       forfeiture of his right to a jury trial was unknowing and the product of deficient

       performance by his trial counsel. See Eldridge v. State, 627 N.E.2d 844, 846 (Ind.

       Ct. App. 1994) (“[A] knowing waiver is the product of an informed will[.]”).

       Ingalls knew he had a right to a jury trial because he affirmatively sought it at

       his initial hearing. But we have no evidence before us that Ingalls knew he

       could be deprived of that right under Criminal Rule 22 if a written request for a

       jury trial was not filed at least 10 days before his first scheduled trial date.

[19]   After Ingalls declared his desire for a jury trial during the initial hearing, the

       trial court essentially told Ingalls that he could not implement that right himself.

       Instead, the court instructed Ingalls to rely on his appointed counsel to file a

       written request for a jury trial. The record suggests that Ingalls’s trial counsel

       failed to file such a request because they did not know Ingalls wanted a jury

       trial. But inaction by both of his trial attorneys prompted that ignorance. The

       record contains no evidence that Ingalls’s first attorney contacted Ingalls about

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-PC-2431 | June 29, 2023            Page 8 of 12
       his withdrawal or successor counsel’s appointment. And Ingalls’s second

       attorney waited more than three weeks after his appointment and two weeks

       after his appearance to contact Ingalls for the first time. By then, the time for

       filing the jury request had passed.2

[20]   Once Ingalls’s second trial attorney contacted him, the motion for jury trial—by

       then, tardy—was quickly filed. As these circumstances were outside Ingalls’s

       control, he had no earlier opportunity to implement his expressed desire for a

       jury trial. The failure of his trial attorneys to consult Ingalls about his right to a

       jury trial before the Criminal Rule 22 deadline resulted in Ingalls’s deprivation

       of trial by jury. “Lawyers in criminal cases are the ‘means through which the

       other rights of the person on trial are secured.’” Stevens v. State, 689 N.E.2d 487,

       490 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (quoting United States v. Chronic, 466 U.S. 648, 653

       (1984)). “Counsel’s function as an assistant to the defendant” generates “the

       overarching duty to advocate the defendant’s cause and the more particular

       duties to consult with the defendant on important decisions and to keep the

       defendant informed of important developments in the course of the

       prosecution.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688.

       2
         Also lacking from the record is any evidence that Ingalls received a copy of the trial court’s order granting
       his first attorney’s motion to withdraw and appointing new counsel. Ingalls’s name is absent from the list of
       people to be served with the court’s order. Ingalls v. State, No. 19A-CR-950, App. Vol. II, p. 20. Thus, Ingalls
       seemingly did not know to contact his new attorney to reiterate his desire for a trial by jury before the
       deadline.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-PC-2431 | June 29, 2023                                   Page 9 of 12
[21]   The failure of trial counsel to discuss Ingalls’s constitutional right to a jury trial

       or to act to preserve that right before the Criminal Rule 22 deadline constituted

       deficient performance.3 In sum, Ingalls met his burden of showing that his trial

       counsel’s “representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness”

       and that his trial counsel, by failing to contact and advise him before the written

       jury request needed to be filed under Criminal Rule 22, made errors so serious

       that counsel was not functioning as counsel guaranteed to him by the Sixth

       Amendment. Kubsch, 934 N.E.2d at 1147; see Lewis v. State, 929 N.E.2d 261,

       264-65 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (finding trial counsel’s failure to file a misdemeanor

       jury trial request constituted deficient performance when the docket reflected

       that Lewis, without counsel, verbally requested a jury trial at his initial hearing

       but his counsel never learned of that request before the Criminal Rule 22

       deadline due to counsels’ inaction).

[22]   Having met the first prong of ineffective assistance of counsel by establishing

       that trial counsel’s deficient performance resulted in the loss of Ingalls’s jury

       trial right, Ingalls need not prove the second prong: prejudice. “When counsel’s

       performance falls below the range of professionally competent representation

       and deprives a defendant of a fundamental right such as the right to a trial by

       jury, prejudice is presumed.” Lewis, 929 N.E.2d at 265 (presuming prejudice

       3
        Admittedly, the Criminal Rule 22 clock ticked quickly as trial counsel struggled to locate Ingalls and
       determine his wishes. But given that the right at stake was of constitutional dimension, a more prudent
       course of action would have been to immediately file the jury trial request, which could be later withdrawn
       after consultation with the defendant.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-PC-2431 | June 29, 2023                               Page 10 of 12
       from counsels’ deficient performance that led to waiver of jury trial right in

       misdemeanor prosecution).

       II. Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel
[23]   Because all parties agree appellate counsel’s performance was deficient, Ingalls

       concentrates on the prejudice prong in claiming ineffective assistance of

       appellate counsel. Ingalls argues he was prejudiced by his appellate counsel’s

       deficient performance because counsel forfeited Ingalls’s meritorious appeal.

       We agree.

[24]   Though appellate counsel raised the issue of Ingalls’s invalid waiver of his right

       to a jury trial, the attorney’s failure to file Ingalls’s appeal in a timely manner

       resulted in dismissal. The “most serious” errors that may be committed by

       appellate counsel occur when counsel deprives the defendant of his right to

       review. Bieghler v. State, 690 N.E.2d 188, 193 (Ind. 1997). This error was

       particularly prejudicial here, where the appeal would have revealed that Ingalls

       had not properly waived his fundamental right to a jury trial. Ingalls has

       established that appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance.

[25]   Given that Ingalls has established that his trial and appellate attorneys rendered

       ineffective assistance of counsel that prejudiced him by depriving him of his

       constitutional right to a jury trial, the post-conviction court erred in denying

       Ingalls’s petition for post-conviction relief.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-PC-2431 | June 29, 2023          Page 11 of 12
[26]   We reverse the lower court’s judgment and remand with instructions to vacate

       Ingalls’s conviction for criminal mischief in the underlying cause.

       Bailey, J., and Brown, J., concur.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-PC-2431 | June 29, 2023     Page 12 of 12