Garrett v. State, 49S00-9201-CR-6

Docket NºNo. 49S00-9201-CR-6
Citation602 N.E.2d 139
Case DateNovember 05, 1992
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

Page 139

602 N.E.2d 139
Ned GARRETT, Jr. Appellant,
STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
No. 49S00-9201-CR-6.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
Nov. 5, 1992.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 26, 1993.

Page 140

John F. Crawford, Indianapolis, for appellant.

Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Geoff Davis, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.

GIVAN, Judge.

A jury trial resulted in the conviction of appellant of Murder, for which he received a sentence of forty (40) years enhanced by thirty (30) years by reason of his status as a habitual offender.

The facts are: In the early morning of August 9, 1989, Ollie Robinson and his younger brother, Timmy Robinson (the victim in this case), were "out getting high" on cocaine. In order to raise more money to purchase cocaine, the brothers packaged flour and sold it to others as cocaine.

Some time later that morning, near 23rd Street and College Avenue, the brothers were approached by a man later identified as appellant. He complained to the brothers that they had sold him "fake" cocaine. During the confrontation, appellant produced a sawed-off shotgun and ordered the brothers into some bushes. He shot Timmy once in the chest resulting in his death. Ollie ran with appellant in pursuit. During the pursuit, he shot Ollie in the arm and buttocks and beat him with the shotgun.

Larry Garrett, not related to appellant, lived at 2249 North Park Avenue. He heard the shots and saw a running man throw something down. Later that morning he found a sawed-off shotgun in his yard. He called the police and they recovered the shotgun. There were no readable fingerprints on the shotgun nor were they able to establish that the pellets found in Timmy's body in fact had been fired from that shotgun. However, they were able to determine that the shotgun was 12 gauge and that Timmy had been killed by a 12 gauge shotgun.

Before trial, Connie Kincaid, appellant's girlfriend, identified the shotgun as the gun appellant once owned. Sheila Mitchell identified the shotgun as the one she had given to appellant. In an unrecorded statement to Detective Larkins, appellant admitted the weapon he used was a shotgun. However, in a recorded statement made by appellant, he made several incriminating statements, exculpatory statements, and a statement that he had used a pistol in committing the shooting. Also, during this statement, he said that he was not telling the truth.

Appellant claims his counsel was ineffective in that although he filed a motion to suppress appellant's confession and Kincaid's inculpatory statement, which motion was overruled by the trial court, he failed to object at trial when this evidence was submitted by the State. Appellant correctly cites Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 for the proposition that a two-step

Page 141

test is required to establish ineffectiveness of counsel: 1) that counsel's representation was "deficient," and 2) that the defendant was harmed as a result. He also cites the case of Elliott v. State (1984), Ind., 465 N.E.2d 707 for the same proposition. We also have held that reversal is appropriate only where the evidence leads unerringly and unmistakably to the conclusion that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. McCraney v. State (1987), Ind., 508 N.E.2d 798.

The trial court held a hearing on appellant's motion to suppress during which appellant claimed that his statement was involuntary as a result of his cocaine intoxication. The State's evidence showed that when appellant was arrested at his apartment on the afternoon of March 10, 1990, he agreed to go with the police officers, he walked down a stairway from his third-floor apartment without assistance or any difficulty, his speech was normal, and there was nothing unusual about his appearance. He showed no signs of being tired or under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

Upon emerging from the building, he was identified by Ollie Robinson, who had directed the police to appellant's apartment. Upon being identified by Ollie, the police arrested appellant and read him his Miranda warnings. He then was transported to the police station where he eventually was questioned and made the statements above referred to. Other than appellant's own statements...

To continue reading

Request your trial
36 cases
  • Smith v. State, 85S04-9701-CR-27
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • December 29, 1997
    ...even though such choices may be subject to criticism or the choice ultimately prove detrimental to the defendant." Garrett v. State, 602 N.E.2d 139, 142 To establish the second element of the test, that is, prejudice, a defendant must show that "there is a reasonable probability that, but f......
  • Harrison v. State, 65S00-9605-PD-318
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • February 9, 1999
    ...evidence of probative value from which a jury could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Garrett v. State, 602 N.E.2d 139, 142 (Ind.1993). There was substantial evidence to support the jury's guilty verdict on the arson count. See Part II.A., supra. Accordingly, had th......
  • Dockery v. State, 18S02-9412-CR-1229
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • December 19, 1994
    ...from which a reasonable trier of fact could infer that the appellant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Garrett v. State (1993), Ind., 602 N.E.2d 139, 142, reh'g denied; Gray, 579 N.E.2d at 609; Ryan, 431 N.E.2d at Before our adoption of Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) in Lannan, general......
  • Curry v. State, 53A01-9312-PC-387
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • December 8, 1994
    ...even if ultimately detrimental to the defendant, does not establish ineffective assistance of counsel. Garrett v. State (1992), Ind., 602 N.E.2d 139, Curry argues that effective trial counsel would have moved to suppress evidence obtained from the van in which he had held Cook captive and w......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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