Fields v. State
| Decision Date | 26 December 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 49A04-1205-PC-249,49A04-1205-PC-249 |
| Parties | SHARIF FIELDS, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT:
STEPHEN T. OWENS
Public Defender of Indiana
MARIO JOVEN
GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Attorney General of Indiana
RYAN D. JOHANNINGSMEIER
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Kimberly J. Brown, Judge
Cause No. 49G16-0408-PC-146690
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATIONBROWN, Judge Sharif Fields appeals the post-conviction court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. Fields raises two issues which we revise and restate as:
We affirm.
The relevant facts as discussed in Fields's direct appeal follow:
On August 4, 2004, Fields knocked on the door of the residence of his ex-wife, Tawanda James ("James").1 When James opened the door, Fields pulled James out of the house by her hair. Fields then pulled James around the corner to the area where he had parked his car. James eventually talked Fields into allowing her to return to the house. Still pulling James by her hair, Fields took James into her bedroom and demanded that James have sex with him. James told Fields that her mother was returning to the house soon, and Fields left the house, only to return shortly thereafter. When he returned to James' house, Fields pulled James to the ground and tried to remove her clothing. He then bit James on her arm hard enough to cause bleeding and bruising. Fields finally left after James promised she would call him.
Fields v. State, No. 49A04-0501-CR-16, slip op. at 2 (Ind. Ct. App. September 7, 2005) (citations omitted).
On August 13, 2004, the State charged Fields with criminal confinement as a class D felony, domestic battery as a class A misdemeanor, battery as a class A misdemeanor, and invasion of privacy as a class A misdemeanor. Id. at 2-3. On November 16, 2004, the court held a bench trial, and James testified to the foregoing facts. Fields testified that he was at work on August 4, 2004, and then went to a hotel with Kamika Garcia andstayed at the hotel all night. Fields also testified that he had told James that he could not "get in any kind of trouble" because he was on probation, and that he did not touch James. Trial Transcript at 17. During closing argument, Fields's counsel pointed out that James had a conviction for forgery as a class C felony and a gun charge in her past and that no pictures of the injury allegedly taken by the State were introduced at trial.
Pursuant to Fields's motion, the trial court dismissed the domestic battery and invasion of privacy charges, but found Fields guilty of criminal confinement as a class D felony and battery as a class A misdemeanor. Fields, slip op. at 3. The court sentenced Fields to one-and-one-half years for the confinement conviction and to time served for the battery conviction. Id. On direct appeal, Fields argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions and that his convictions for both confinement and battery violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Indiana Constitution. This court affirmed his convictions. Id. at 2, 4-6.
On December 9, 2008, Fields filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief which alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel, that there was evidence that was not previously presented which required vacation of his convictions, and that the State failed to preserve evidence that was useful or exculpatory. On August 20, 2010, Fields by counsel filed an amendment to his petition for post-conviction relief.
On October 19, 2010, the court held a hearing on the petition. At the beginning of the hearing, the State asked for a clarification of Fields's claims and whether he was bringing allegations "under the new evidence rule." Post-Conviction Transcript at 6. Fields's post-conviction counsel stated: Id.
Fields introduced four police reports which the court admitted. Specifically, a police report dated July 11, 2004, indicated that the complainant, Kamika Garcia, had been having an ongoing relationship with Fields and that Garcia had received a threatening phone call from James on July 11, 2004.2 A second police report dated July 30, 2004, indicated that Garcia reported receiving harassing telephone calls from James. A third police report dated August 5, 2004, indicated that the police were dispatched to a disturbance that day, and the narrative of the report states in part:
[James] stated that she tried to confide in her mother that her boyfriend, Sharif Fields, whom she has a protective order against, came over the night before with a gun, dragged her out of the house and chased her around the park. Miss James stated she would not call the police because Mr. Fields has a back-up of 30 years for crimes, which she did not specify. At which point Miss Taylor became upset with her daughter Miss James, yelling that she should call the police and a fight ensued. Mr. Taylor stated he was there and saw Miss Taylor and Miss James fighting with each other, pulling each other's hair, biting each other, and pushing and shoving. Mr. Taylor states this is a regular occurrence that goes on almost weekly. . . . I was advised by Miss James who showed me what could have been a bite mark on her left arm, and stated her mother had done it. At which point I was going to arrest the mother, Elizabeth Taylor for battery with injury. Miss James stated "How can you prove that she did it?" I told Miss James I would take her word for it. Miss James said, "Well, you can't because I'm not telling the truth." At which point I was not sure what to believe what was going on. I stated to Miss James that I would make a report and that she could go down to the prosecutor's office to seek a warrant for Mr. Fields for violating the protective order, if he did in fact come over the previous night, to which she started to recant her story and if she decided to press charges on her mother, Miss Taylor. I also advised her that her mother could press charges on her. Neither wanted to press charges on the other.
Petitioner's Exhibit 3.
A fourth police report dated August 6, 2004, related to the incident on August 4, 2004, between James and Fields. The report indicated that James had alleged that Fields stated that he would bite off her jaw and bite her left arm right at her underarm. The report also stated: "Pictures were taken by the prosecutor's office and [James] stated that she is willing to prosecute." Petitioner's Exhibit 4. Affidavits from the officers that made the reports indicated that they had no independent recollection of the events in the reports.
Fields introduced the testimony of Lashaunda McClain, the mother of Fields's son. McClain testified that James called her and stated: "[I]f you get involved, I will send him back to jail." Post-Conviction Transcript at 82.
Scott Munroe, Fields's former employer, described the relationship between Fields and James as tense and described an incident in which Fields and James argued on Munroe's front lawn. The State objected, and the court stated "[i]nasmuch as your questioning is an attempt to discredit or to prove motive by Ms. Fields for bringing the charges that ultimately resulted in Mr. Fields's conviction, the motion, the objection is sustained." Id. at 73-74. During an offer of proof, Munroe testified that James followed him and Fields for a few miles and that Fields and Munroe called the police.
Fields also introduced and the court admitted into evidence the charging information against James alleging that she committed invasion of privacy as a class A misdemeanor by entering Fields's residence uninvited on May 21, 2004, and committedintimidation against Fields as a class D felony that same day by telling him: "I'm going to kill you[;] I'm going to blow your head off."3 Petitioner's Exhibit 17.
Fields's trial counsel testified that he did not remember the case and that he looked at the file in the public defender's office and still did not remember the case. Fields's trial counsel also stated that generally he "[v]ery possibly" would have reviewed police reports for the case and that he would have investigated the victim "[a]s much as possible." Post-Conviction Transcript at 55. When asked whether he would use the fact that a victim in this type of case chased around the defendant and his employer and cursed at them to challenge the victim's credibility, trial counsel stated that he could not say without knowing more but that it would merit investigation. When questioned about a defendant facing twenty-four years in another court for a probation violation and whether a victim's threat to "put the defendant away if he ever left her by alleging something like a criminal confinement against him" would affect her credibility, Fields's trial counsel answered: Id. at 57. Fields's trial counsel also indicated that he reviewed the file, that he did not see any indication that Fields informed him about a possible alibi, and thatit was his general practice to "certainly note" an alibi defense if there was a possibility of such a defense. Id. at 59.
On April 23, 2012, the court denied Fields's petition for post-conviction relief in a thirteen-page order. Specifically,...
To continue reading
Request your trial