Conley v. State

Decision Date23 February 2021
Docket NumberCourt of Appeals Case No. 19A-PC-3085
Citation164 N.E.3d 787
Parties Andrew CONLEY, Appellant-Petitioner, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Respondent.
CourtIndiana Appellate Court

Attorneys for Appellant: Amy E. Karozos, Public Defender of Indiana, Deidre R. Eltzroth, Deputy Public Defender, Steven H. Schutte, Deputy Public Defender, Indianapolis, Indiana

Attorneys for Appellee: Theodore E. Rokita, Attorney General of Indiana, Ellen H. Meilaender, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana

Attorneys for Amicus Curiae: Bernice Corley, Executive Director, Indiana Public Defender Council, Indianapolis, Indiana, Joel C. Wieneke, Senior Staff Attorney, IPDC, Wieneke Law Office, LLC, Brooklyn, Indiana

Tavitas, Judge.

Case Summary1

[1] Notions of equity and fairness dictate that courts, in imposing sentences upon juvenile offenders, must acknowledge the stark limitations of youth, children's capacity for change, and children's diminished culpability. Acclaimed writer Ambrose Bierce once philosophized: "Childhood [is] the period of human life intermediate between the idiocy of infancy and the folly of youth – tw[ice] remove[d] from the sin of manhood and thr[ice] [removed] from the remorse of age."2 In this vein, an ongoing jurisprudential shift—led by the United States Supreme Court—counsels for imposing constitutional limits on sentences assessed to juvenile offenders and prescribes a mandatory process whereby sentencing judges should take into account "how children are different, and how those differences counsel against irrevocably sentencing them to a lifetime in prison" before imposing such sentences. Miller v. Alabama , 567 U.S. 460, 480, 132 S. Ct. 2455, 2469, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012).

[2] As a deeply-troubled seventeen-year-old, Andrew Conley did the unthinkable when he killed his ten-year-old brother, Conner, in brutal fashion. Following Conley's guilty plea and a five-day sentencing hearing that inadequately accounted for Conley's age and mental health, the trial court imposed a maximum sentence of life without the possibility of parole ("LWOP").

[3] Conley now appeals the post-conviction court's ("PC Court") denial of his amended petition for post-conviction relief ("PCR") and raises numerous issues. We affirm the PC Court's rejection of each issue except for the PC Court's denial of Conley's ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim. We conclude that Conley's trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to introduce scientific evidence regarding juvenile brain development at Conley's sentencing hearing, by failing to adequately present mitigating evidence, and failing to effectively cross-examine the State's witnesses. Accordingly, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with instructions to conduct a new sentencing hearing.

Issues

[4] Amicus curiae, the Indiana Public Defender Council ("IPDC"), raises one issue, and Conley raises five issues on appeal, which we restate as follows:

I. Whether the Indiana Constitution categorically bans LWOP sentences for all juvenile offenders.
II. Whether Conley's trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance.
III. Whether Conley's guilty plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.
IV. Whether Conley's appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance.
V. Whether newly-discovered evidence renders Conley's sentence unfair.
VI. Whether the doctrine of res judicata bars Conley's claims of unconstitutionality and inappropriateness of sentence.
Facts
I. The Offense

[5] On November 29, 2009, Conley, age seventeen, walked into the Rising Sun Police Department and confessed that he killed his ten-year-old brother, Conner. Conley voluntarily turned himself in and participated in several interviews with the police. Conley recounted the following facts to the police during the interviews.

[6] The day before he confessed, Conley was babysitting Conner, as he often did while his mother and father worked.3 Conley and Conner often wrestled for fun. That evening, they were wrestling, and Conley placed Conner in a headlock from behind with Conley's arm around Conner's neck. Conley recounted that, at first, Conley was merely play wrestling, but his arm around Conner's neck got tighter and Conley increased the pressure of his arm on Conner's neck. Conner passed out. While Conner was lying on the floor, Conley placed his hands around Conner's neck and strangled Conner for approximately twenty minutes. Blood was expressed from Conner's nose and mouth. Conley stated that something came over him, and he could not stop himself from strangling Conner. Conley denied being angry for having to watch Conner while his parents were at work or for any other reason. Conley reported that he loved Conner, but he could not stop himself from strangling Conner.

[7] Conley then grabbed a plastic bag, placed it over Conner's head, and wrapped electrical tape around Conner's face to prevent blood from seeping onto the floor. Conley placed a garbage bag around the body and dragged the body down the basement stairs, through the basement, and to the garage. Once in the garage, Conley banged Conner's head on the cement floor to ensure that Conner was indeed dead. Conley loaded Conner's body into the trunk of his car. Conley then changed his clothes and drove to his girlfriend's house with the body in the trunk. After two hours, Conley left, drove to a wooded area, and disposed of Conner's body under brush in the wooded area. Conley went home before his parents returned home from work, washed the blood off the floor, and put his bloody clothes in the closet. His mother and father returned home that morning after work.

[8] While Conley's mother slept on the sofa and his father slept in the bedroom, Conley admitted that he entered their bedroom twice with a knife and stood over his father. He had thoughts of killing his father but decided against it. He could not explain why he felt like killing his father.

[9] Later that day, Conley admitted to two friends that he killed Conner. Conley then drove himself to the Rising Sun Police Department and reported that he "accidentally" killed his brother while they were wrestling. Direct Appeal Tr. Vol. II p. 278. Conley's parents were called. Conley consulted with his mother and agreed to be questioned further by the police. He gave three statements in all, and Conley admitted to killing his brother. When asked repeatedly why he killed Conner, Conley stated that Conley was "sick" and "need[ed] help." Direct Appeal Ex. Vol. I p. 235, 244 (Ex. 493A). Conley said that he "felt like a horrible person" and that he "wanted to stop" but "just couldn't do anything to stop." Id. at 225 (Ex. 492A). Conley said, "it just seems like I was stuck there watching that happen and I couldn't do anything." Id. Conley denied that he was angry with his brother for having to watch him or for any other reason.

[10] Conley reported during the interviews that he attempted suicide several times, including recently. Conley stated that he has felt that there was something wrong with him since the seventh or eighth grade. Conley admitted having thoughts of "taking a knife and cutting someone's throat or just beating them to death with [his] hands...." Id. at 220 (Ex. 492A). At the time of the killing, Conley was a senior in high school but had recently dropped out of school after a suicide attempt.

[11] The State charged Conley as an adult with murder on December 3, 2009. Attorney Gary Sorge was appointed to represent Conley. Attorney Sorge filed a Notice of Defense of Mental Disease or Defect and requested the appointment of two to three psychiatrists to determine whether Conley was "not responsible for having engaged in prohibited conduct if, as a result of mental disease or defect, he was unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of the conduct at the time of the offense." Ind. Code § 35-41-3-6. Attorney Sorge later filed a motion for an independent psychological evaluation by Dr. Edward Connor to aid in Conley's defense.

[12] A jury trial was originally set for May 3, 2010, and was continued on the request of Attorney Sorge in order to continue plea negotiations. The trial court granted the continuance. In July 2010, seven months after the charges were filed and two months before the rescheduled jury trial was to commence, the State filed a notice of their intent to seek a sentence of life imprisonment without parole. The trial court then appointed Attorney John Watson as defense co-counsel.

[13] On August 6, 2010, the State moved to exclude Conley's insanity defense, and the State filed notice of their intent to call a psychologist or psychiatrist to testify at trial. Around the same time, Conley's defense team hired an investigator to aid in preparation of the defense. Attorney Watson later testified at the post-conviction hearing that the investigator interviewed several witnesses prior to the scheduled sentencing hearing, but the investigator informed the defense attorneys that more time was needed to investigate. Further investigation was not pursued by the defense team. Conley pleaded guilty without a plea agreement on September 13, 2010, the day his trial was to begin. The five-day sentencing hearing began on September 15, 2010, only two days after Conley pleaded guilty.

II. The Sentencing Hearing

[14] During the sentencing hearing, the State presented testimony from the police officers, detectives, and crime scene investigators detailing Conley's statements to police, Conley's calm demeanor, and the investigation of the murder. Conley's girlfriend, Alexis Murafski, testified that, after murdering Conner, Conley went to her house, watched a movie with her, and gave her a ring he got from his grandmother. On cross-examination, Murafski testified that Conley argued with his parents quite a bit and that Conley had attempted suicide. Conley's mother and father testified that Conley was a good student and did not cause problems, that Conley had a good relationship with Conner, that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Conley v. State
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 23 Marzo 2022
    ...court on this issue (affirming on the other issues), finding that Conley received ineffective assistance of counsel. Conley v. State , 164 N.E.3d 787 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021), vacated. The State sought transfer, which we granted, vacating the Court of Appeals’ opinion. See Ind. App. R. 58(A).St......
  • Conley v. State
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 23 Marzo 2022
  • Gaeta v. Huntington Nat'l Bank
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 23 Febrero 2021

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT