Haynes v. State
| Decision Date | 12 May 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 49A02-9704-PC-251,49A02-9704-PC-251 |
| Parties | Karl HAYNES, Appellant-Petitioner, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Respondent. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Appellant-Defendant Karl Haynes ("Haynes") appeals the post-conviction court's denial of his Petition for Post-conviction Relief challenging his convictions for Murder and Conspiracy to Commit Murder. 1 We affirm.
Haynes raises four issues on appeal which we consolidate and restate as whether Haynes was denied fundamental due process as a result of the conduct of his trial and appellate counsel.
The facts, as set forth by our supreme court in Haynes' direct appeal, are as follows:
During the afternoon of August 1, 1983, Co-defendant Carl Isom and two friends roamed around the near northside of Indianapolis trying to sell marijuana. In the vicinity of 25th and Delaware Streets, Isom attempted to sell marijuana to three men on bicycles but an altercation ensued and Isom was beaten and his marijuana was taken by one of the men, Curtis Payton. Isom subsequently contacted [Haynes] who obtained a .25 caliber handgun for him and drove him to where his companions were waiting. [Haynes] was armed with a .32 caliber revolver. [Haynes], Isom and the others thereupon conducted a search for the men who had taken Isom's marijuana and eventually observed Payton near a liquor store. [Haynes] and Isom there confronted Payton and demanded the return of Isom's "reefer." Isom shot Payton and [Haynes] hit Payton in the face as he turned to flee. [Haynes] then joined with Isom in pursuing Payton and both fired their guns at the fleeing Payton. Payton was found dead nearby, having died from two .25 caliber bullet wounds.
Haynes v. State, 479 N.E.2d 572, 573-74 (Ind.1985).
Isom and Haynes were each subsequently arrested and later prosecuted together in a joint trial. Isom did not testify at trial. However, his extra-judicial statement to police, which suggested that Haynes pointed his gun at the decedent and fired, was admitted through Detective Burgess. Haynes' trial attorney did not object to the admission of Isom's statement.
Attorney William Erbecker represented Haynes at trial. Following a jury trial, Haynes was convicted for Murder and Conspiracy to Commit Murder. Haynes, through his appellate counsel Aaron Haith, then exercised his right to appeal. In so doing, Haynes claimed the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his convictions and that his sentence was manifestly unreasonable. Thereafter, our supreme court affirmed Haynes' convictions and sentence. See Haynes v. State, 479 N.E.2d 572 (Ind.1985). Haynes subsequently filed a Petition for Post-conviction Relief.
In his post-conviction petition, Haynes raised for the first time the errors alleged in the present appeal. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied Haynes' request for relief. The following appeal ensued.
A person convicted of, or sentenced for, a crime by a court of this state has a constitutional right to appeal that conviction or sentence directly to either this Court or the Indiana Supreme Court. Ind. Const. art. VII, § 6. "After a convicted or sentenced person's appeal, Indiana law permits such a person to seek 'post-conviction relief' through a special, quasi-civil action in certain circumstances and under certain conditions." Roche v. State, 690 N.E.2d 1115, 1119 (Ind.1997).
Post-conviction procedures are reserved for subsequent collateral challenges and may not provide a "super appeal" for the convicted. Weatherford v. State, 619 N.E.2d 915, 916 (Ind.1993). Thus, if an issue was available on direct appeal but not litigated, it is deemed waived. Madden v. State, 656 N.E.2d 524, 526 (Ind.Ct.App.1995), trans. denied.
The post-conviction petitioner bears the burden of establishing his grounds for relief by a preponderance of the evidence. Ind.Post-Conviction Rule 1(5); Weatherford, 619 N.E.2d at 917. "To the extent that a person seeking post-conviction relief (usually referred to as the 'petitioner') has been denied post-conviction relief by the post-conviction court, the petitioner appeals from a negative judgment." Roche, 690 N.E.2d at 1119-20. This is Haynes' situation in the present case. When an appeal is from a negative judgment, the petitioner must convince this Court that the evidence as a whole was such that it leads unerringly and unmistakably to a decision opposite that reached by the trial court. Spranger v. State, 650 N.E.2d 1117, 1119 (Ind.1995). It is only where the evidence is without conflict and leads to but one conclusion, and the post-conviction court has reached the opposite conclusion, that the decision will be disturbed as being contrary to law. Id. at 1120.
In his post-conviction petition for relief, Haynes alleged, for the first time, several errors which he contends entitle him to relief. Haynes' allegations of error included (1) that the trial court committed fundamental error when it instructed the jury that sudden heat was an element of Voluntary Manslaughter 2, (2) that he was denied his constitutional right to confrontation when his non-testifying codefendant's extra-judicial statement was admitted at trial and (3) that he was denied effective assistance of trial counsel.
As set forth previously, the purpose of post-conviction relief is not to provide a substitute for direct appeal, but to provide a means for raising issues not known or available to the defendant at the time of the original appeal. Carrington v. State, 678 N.E.2d 1143, 1146 (Ind.Ct.App.1997), trans. denied. If an issue was available on direct appeal, but not litigated, it is waived. Id.
The record reveals that Haynes failed to object to the trial court's Voluntary Manslaughter instruction. He also failed to object to Detective Burgess' testimony regarding Isom's extra-judicial statement. Further, while Haynes took a direct appeal of the trial court's verdict to the Indiana Supreme Court, he again failed to raise any of the above-mentioned allegations of error, including any claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
In determining that Haynes was not entitled to post-conviction relief, the post-conviction court concluded as follows:
2. [Haynes'] allegations concerning those matters at the trial level of this cause are waived as they were available to him on direct appeal; [Haynes] has failed furthermore in his burden of showing such issues would have been meritorious.
(PCR. 242). 3 For the foregoing reasons, we find the post-conviction court's conclusions were supported by the evidence and its determination of waiver to be proper under the circumstances.
Haynes attempts to avoid application of the waiver doctrine by asserting that it does not apply in the present case. Specifically, Haynes contends that he was denied fundamental due process as a result of the ineffective assistance of his trial counsel in committing these errors and his appellate counsel in failing to raise these errors during his direct appeal.
It is true that we have acknowledged an exception to the waiver rule in circumstances where the trial court committed "fundamental error." However, "we view this exception as an extremely narrow one, available only when the record reveals clearly blatant violations of basic and elementary principles of due process, and the harm or potential for harm cannot be denied." Canaan v. State, 683 N.E.2d 227, 235 n. 6 (Ind.1997), petition for cert. filed.
Lacey v. State, 670 N.E.2d 1299, 1302 (Ind.Ct.App.1996) (quotation marks and citations omitted). In reviewing the fundamental fairness doctrine, we have expressed concern that this doctrine should not become a safe harbor for defendants who fail to raise proper and timely objections at trial. Id.
One of the cornerstones of our litigation process has been the contemporaneous objection rule. With this guidepost in mind, we [have] held that [t]he doctrine of fundamental error exists as the exception to the rule since it permits consideration on appeal of errors to which no objection was made at trial.... The mere fact that error occurred and that it was prejudicial will not suffice. That, after all, is the ordinary rule for reversal on appeal when the contemporaneous objection has been made. Rather the error must be one such that the defendant could not possibly have had a fair trial or such that this court is left with the conviction that the verdict or sentence is clearly wrong or of such dubious validity that justice cannot permit it to stand.
Id. (first emphasis added). Additionally, in determining whether fundamental error has occurred, we consider the character of the error and its effect upon the trial as a whole. Id. Further,
While concerns over due process do sometimes merit invocation of a fundamental error exception to the contemporaneous objection rule on direct appeal, we think its availability as an exception to the waiver rule in post-conviction proceedings is generally limited to those circumstances we set forth in Bailey v. State, 472 N.E.2d 1260, 1263 (Ind.1985): '[D]eprivation of the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel, or ... an issue demonstrably unavailable to the petitioner at the time of his [or her] trial and direct...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wallace v. Davis, Cause No. IP95-0215-C-B/S (S.D. Ind. 11/14/2002)
...711 N.E.2d 1238, 1246 (Ind. 1999). If an issue was available on direct appeal, but not litigated, it is waived. Haynes v. State, 695 N.E.2d 148, 151 (Ind.Ct.App. 1998), trans denied. However, there exists an exception to the waiver rule in circumstances where the post-conviction court commi......
-
Woods v. State
...and available on direct appeal so long as the defendant is represented by different counsel on appeal. See, e.g., Haynes v. State, 695 N.E.2d 148, 153 (Ind.Ct.App.1998); Moore v. State, 649 N.E.2d 686, 690 n. 2 (Ind.Ct.App.1995). At least one intermediate appellate decision distinguished re......
-
Badelle v. State
...as a whole, leads unerringly and unmistakably to a decision opposite that reached by the post-conviction court. See Haynes v. State, 695 N.E.2d 148, 153 (Ind. Ct.App.1998). As Badelle raises numerous ineffective assistance of counsel claims, several of which concern the merits of issues alr......
-
Williams v. State
...there is a narrow exception to the waiver rule in circumstances where the trial court committed "fundamental error." Haynes v. State, 695 N.E.2d 148, 152 (Ind.Ct.App.1998). The error must be one such that the defendant was denied a fair trial or such that this court is left with the convict......