Blauvelt v. State
| Citation | 26 N.E.3d 1077 (Table) |
| Decision Date | 30 January 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 53A04–1407–PC–308.,53A04–1407–PC–308. |
| Parties | Jon Colin BLAUVELT, Appellant–Petitioner, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee–Respondent. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Eric C. Bohnet, Indianapolis, IN, Attorney for Appellant.
Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Eric P. Babbs, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.
BROWN
, Judge.
[1] Jon Colin Blauvelt appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. Blauvelt raises four issues, which we consolidate and restate as whether the post-conviction court erred in denying his petition for relief. We affirm.
[2] On October 22, 2008, Blauvelt attempted to murder Robin Shepherd and Marilyn Shepherd by pouring gasoline in and about they dwelling occupied and setting the dwelling on fire with the specific intent to kill them. Robin was sleeping and pregnant at the time. Blauvelt also knowingly or intentionally attempted to commit the crime of feticide by pouring the gasoline and setting the gasoline aflame or by setting the dwelling on fire. The fire damaged Robin's dwelling and resulted in bodily injuries to Robin.
[3] On October 24, 2008, the State charged Blauvelt with Count I, attempted murder of Robin as a class A felony; Count II, attempted murder of Marilyn as a class A felony; and Count III, arson resulting in bodily injury as a class A felony. On March 4, 2009, the State also charged Blauvelt with Count IV, attempted feticide as a class C felony.
[4] On June 26, 2009, Blauvelt's counsel, Attorney Patrick Schrems, filed a notice of intent to offer insanity as a defense. On August 12, 2009, Matt Oliver, PhD, HSPP, filed a mental health evaluation of Blauvelt, and on October 14, 2009, Dr. Greg Sidell also filed a mental health evaluation.
[5] On January 13, 2010, Blauvelt signed a plea agreement in which he agreed to plead guilty as charged. The agreement specified that the total sentence was not to exceed sixty years and that Blauvelt “waive[d] right to appeal guilty plea and sentence.” Appellant's Appendix at 32. That same day, the court held a hearing. Blauvelt's counsel withdrew the defense of insanity. Upon questioning by the court, Blauvelt informed the court that he was taking Zoloft
and Haldol and indicated that the medications did not in any way affect his ability to think. The court informed Blauvelt of his constitutional rights including the right to require the State to prove the charges against him beyond a reasonable doubt before being convicted. The court reviewed the charging information, and Blauvelt indicated that he understood the charges and pled guilty. At the end of the hearing, the court found Blauvelt's plea to be free, knowing, and voluntary, found a factual basis, and “continue[d] under advisement the entry of judgment and further sentencing pending the sentencing hearing.” Id. at 61.
[6] On March 2, 2010, the court held a sentencing hearing. Blauvelt's counsel called Blauvelt's mother who testified regarding his mental illness. Blauvelt made a statement but the record indicates that the statement is inaudible. His counsel asked the court to consider his age and lack of criminal history as mitigators. The court stated:
First of all I want to make note of the fact that [Blauvelt], when entering his plea of guilty, went through a long discussion with the Court with regard to his mental health issues and waived knowingly and intentionally any defenses that they might have raised. That doesn't preclude him from raising that as an issue to be considered in the matter of sentencing, but that in light of his actions, knew the difference between right and wrong, and intentionally perpetrated the actions which resulted in these outrageous crimes.... And I've looked over the presentence and considered certainly the evidence submitted during the sentencing hearing and I concur in large part with the State in their analysis of the defendant's actions, the aggravating circumstances, which were set forth. It was a carefully planned out and thought set of actions.
[7] The court sentenced Blauvelt to thirty years each for Counts I, II, and III, and six years for Count IV, and ordered that the sentence for Count II be served consecutive to Count I, that the sentence for Count III be served concurrent with Counts I and IV, and that the sentence for Count IV be served concurrent with Counts I and III. The court sentenced Blauvelt to an aggregate sentence of sixty years.
[8] On March 30, 2011, Blauvelt, pro se, filed a petition for post-conviction relief. On September 17, 2013, Blauvelt by counsel filed an amended petition for post-conviction relief alleging that the trial court improperly accepted his guilty plea and that his trial counsel was ineffective.
[9] On March 5, 2014, the court held an evidentiary hearing at which Blauvelt's counsel requested that the file from the direct criminal proceedings be entered into evidence or that judicial notice be taken of the file, and the court stated: “so noted.”1 Transcript at 22. Blauvelt testified that he pled guilty because he was willing to accept responsibility for the arson, he “didn't want to drag Robin ... Shepard through ... what could have been the trial,” and he “wasn't trying to waste any more time or energy or money from the Court.” Id. at 2. He testified that he did not understand at that time that he was pleading guilty to attempted murder as well as arson because he was on three different medications: Zoloft
, an antidepressant, Haldol, an antipsychotic, and Cogentin, which he understood was used to help stabilize the Haldol. He testified that the medications significantly interfered with his ability to comprehend and understand things, that he did not understand that he was confessing to having set the fire with the specific intent to kill anybody, and that a psychologist in the Monroe County Jail evaluated him a few weeks after his arrest and diagnosed him with schizophrenia, an unspecific personality disorder, and depression. When asked to describe the side effects of his medications, Blauvelt stated:
[10] On June 6, 2014, the court denied Blauvelt's petition. The order states in part:
. Counsel's tactical decisions and matters of strategy are discretionary and receive deferential review. Step hens on v. State, 864 N.E.2d 1022, 1031 (Ind.2007) (), reh'g denied, cert. denied, 552 U.S. 1314, 128 S.Ct. 1871 (2008) ]. Counsel's strategy and tactical decisions in presenting [Blauvelt's] defense at sentencing have not fallen below an objective standard of performance.
B. Improper Acceptance of Guilty Plea Claim
In Owens v. State, the defendant pled guilty with “yes” or “no” answers, and this was a sufficient factual basis to deny his request to withdraw the guilty plea at sentencing. 426 N.E.2d 372, 374 (Ind.1981)
. [Blauvelt's] contention that his plea should not have been accepted because he did not provide a narrative description is without merit in light of Owen [s]. In respect to each charge, the Court asked [Blauvelt] if he understood the charge and how he pled to it. [Blauvelt] stated that he understood and pled guilty to each charge.
[Blauvelt] further contends that statements he made maintaining “it was not his intent to injure either [victim]” that were reported in his Presentence Investigation Report contradict his plea and therefore should have led the Court to reject his plea. Presentence Investigation Report 7. Unlike in Owen [s], [Blauvelt] never requested to withdraw his guilty plea, instead he asserts that statements made to a probation officer declaring that he did not intend to hurt anyone should negate the factual basis of his plea. Setting aside a guilty pleas [sic] after acceptance, but before sentencing in non-capital cases is left to the trial court's discretion. See, e.g.,
To continue reading
Request your trial