Bridges v. State
Docket Number | 22A-PC-2858 |
Decision Date | 07 August 2023 |
Parties | John Arthur Bridges, Jr., Appellant-Defendant, v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. |
Court | Court of Appeals of Indiana |
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.
Appeal from the Allen Superior Court The Honorable Steven O Godfrey, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 02D06-1702-PC-16
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Russell W. Brown, Jr. The Region Lawyers, Inc. Merrillville, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana Justin F. Roebel Supervising Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
[¶1] John A. Bridges, Jr. ("Bridges") appeals the post-conviction court's denial, following a bench trial, of his amended petition for post-conviction relief ("PCR"). We affirm.
[¶2] Bridges raises the following issues: I. Whether the post-conviction court clearly erred when it denied Bridges' claims that his trial counsel was ineffective.
II. Whether the post-conviction court clearly erred when it denied Bridges' claims that his appellate counsel was ineffective.
III. Whether the trial court clearly erred when it denied Bridges' claim that the State suppressed exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland.
IV. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it denied Bridges' request to discover a confidential informant's entire police file.
[¶3] Following a bench trial on June 16-17, 2014, Bridges was found guilty of dealing in cocaine, as a Level 2 felony;[1] dealing in a narcotic drug, as a Level 4 felony;[2] dealing in a narcotic drug, as a Level 5 felony;[3] dealing in a narcotic drug, as a Level 5 felony;[4] and dealing in marijuana, hash oil or hashish, as a Level 6 felony.[5] On July 2, 2015, he was sentenced to twenty-five years in the Department of Correction with twenty years executed and five years suspended. On August 5 2015, Bridges appealed, alleging insufficient evidence to support his convictions, and a panel of this Court affirmed his convictions. Bridges v. State, No. 02A04-1507-CR-1046, 2016 WL 1583766 (Ind.Ct.App. April 20, 2016), trans. denied.
[¶4] On direct appeal, this Court summarized the facts supporting the convictions as follows:
[¶5] On February 6, 2017, Bridges filed a pro se petition for PCR. Bridges subsequently obtained counsel, who filed amended PCR petitions on August 18, 2020, and August 25, 2021. Bridges also filed a motion to compel discovery in which he sought "the entire file on CI 1988," i.e., Begnene. App. At 80. Following a hearing on the motion, the court denied it. The court conducted evidentiary hearings on the issues raised in Bridges' PCR action on April 19, 2021, June 14, 2021, and March 28, 2022.
[¶6] On November 4, 2022, the post-conviction court issued its written order in which it made findings of fact and conclusions thereon. In addition to the facts summarized by this Court in the direct appeal, the post-conviction court's factual findings included the following:
Id. The affidavit does not state that the CI was a paid informant and does not disclose that the CI had "shorted" Detective Heath $100 on the first controlled buy in order to pay off a drug debt, both of which are true. PCR Tr. [at] 64-79. Attorney Arnold did not object to the admission of the evidence obtained by means of the search warrant.
11. At the final pretrial hearing on May 20, 2015, Mr. Bridges expressed dissatisfaction with attorney Arnold and inquired about the possibility of representing himself at trial. The Court acknowledged Mr. Bridges'[] right to represent himself, but declined to continue the trial set for June 16 and 17 in order to allow Mr. Bridges to prepare to represent himself. Then, claiming that he had no other choice, Mr. Bridges agreed to proceed to trial represented by attorney Arnold. Attorney Thoma did not argue on appeal that Mr. Bridges'[] right to represent himself had been violated.
12. After Mr. Bridges'[] sentencing[,] the prosecutor learned, and informed attorney Arnold [in November of 2015] that the CI had been paid for testifying. Attorney Arnold testified that he had no reason to question the CI's veracity based on being paid; that he did not think the courts or juries seemed to care that CIs were paid; and that being paid to testify was no different from being paid to do a controlled buy "if they tell you[,]" although he did not "like that we did not know that." [PCR Tr.] at 58. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial