Cates v. State, 484S157
| Decision Date | 27 September 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 484S157,484S157 |
| Parties | Donald Ross CATES, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Jack Quirk, Muncie, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Marguerite M. Sweeney, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Defendant-Appellant Donald Ross Cates was convicted of class A felony Attempted Murder at the conclusion of a jury trial in the Delaware Superior Court. The trial court sentenced him to twenty years imprisonment. Appellant now directly appeals and raises the following as his sole issue:
1. whether he was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel.
The facts adduced during trial and most favorable to the State show that Appellant, a thirty-seven year old man, took a pistol from his parents' house, hid it in an automobile air filter box, and directed the victim--his estranged wife--to drive him to his parents' property in a rural area where he shot her twice in the chest. Appellant then drove her to a hospital. At trial, Appellant by counsel maintained that the shooting was an accident.
Appellant argues on appeal that he "did not receive an adequate defense" because his trial counsel did not present any evidence at trial of his mental and physical health at the time of the "event." Appellant asserts that he was hospitalized for gonorrhea and was diagnosed to be paranoid schizophrenic approximately one month prior to when his wife was shot. It is, of course, basic that we presume that counsel was competent and we require convincing evidence to rebut that presumption. Smith v. State, (1984) Ind., 465 N.E.2d 1105, reh. denied; Howell v. State, (1983) Ind., 453 N.E.2d 241; Lindley v. State, (1981) Ind., 426 N.E.2d 398. Moreover, this Court will presume that the strategies or tactics which were not employed by trial counsel were not warranted by the circumstances or, if indicated, were rejected after due deliberation. Helton v. State, (1980) 273 Ind. 211, 402 N.E.2d 1263. As the United States Supreme Court has held, the proper standard for attorney performance is that of reasonably effective assistance. Strickland v. Washington, (1984) --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674. Accordingly, when a convicted defendant complains of the ineffectiveness of his counsel's assistance, the defendant must show that counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms.
In the instant case, Appellant's trial counsel advanced the defense that this shooting was accidental. Counsel put Appellant on the witness stand and allowed Appellant to testify that his gun accidentally discharged twice while the victim attempted to take it from him. Appellant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wisehart v. State
...which had been omitted at trial would have been inconsistent and contradictory to the appellant's own trial testimony. Cates v. State, 468 N.E.2d 522 (Ind.1984); Kemp v. State, 446 N.E.2d 1306 (Ind.1983).20 At the time of the crimes at issue, the legislature defined insanity as the lack of ......
-
Shackelford v. State
...which had been omitted at trial would have been inconsistent and contradictory to the appellant's own trial testimony. Cates v. State (1984), Ind., 468 N.E.2d 522; Kemp v. State (1983), Ind., 446 N.E.2d The theories of self-defense and intoxication are not inconsistent as a matter of law. V......