Hollonquest v. State, No. 1081S287

Docket NºNo. 1081S287
Citation432 N.E.2d 37
Case DateMarch 12, 1982
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

Page 37

432 N.E.2d 37
Clifton HOLLONQUEST, Appellant (Defendant below),
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below).
No. 1081S287.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
March 12, 1982.

Page 38

Susan K. Carpenter, Public Defender, Carr L. Darden, Deputy Public Defender, Indianapolis, for appellant.

Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Carmen L. Quintana, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

HUNTER, Justice.

The petitioner, Clifton Hollonquest, is before this Court appealing from the denial of his petition for relief under Post-Conviction Relief, Rule 1. He was convicted by a jury of armed robbery and assault with intent to kill and was sentenced to terms of twenty-three years and two-to-fourteen years respectively. His conviction was affirmed by this Court in Hollonquest v. State, (1979) Ind., 398 N.E.2d 655. He now raises two issues in this petition:

1. Whether he was denied the effective assistance of counsel; and

2. Whether he was entitled to the presence of counsel at a pretrial lineup.

A summary of the facts relevant to these issues shows that there was an armed robbery of a filling station attendant in Indianapolis, Indiana, on the evening of May 22, 1977. One customer was in the station at the time of the robbery. At the trial, the attendant positively identified petitioner as the robber. The attendant also testified that he had identified petitioner at a lineup and had selected two photographs of him from an array of thirty photographs. The customer was unable to identify petitioner at the trial. Petitioner unsuccessfully attempted

Page 39

to establish an alibi defense. His mother testified that he was at her house all the day and evening of the crime painting and doing yard work. Following his conviction at the trial, petitioner raised the issues of the alleged suggestiveness of the pretrial identifications and the insufficiency of the evidence. However, the trial court's judgment was affirmed.

At the post-conviction relief hearing, petitioner raised the issue of the inadequacy of counsel based upon the poor presentation of his alibi defense. Three potential witnesses were listed in petitioner's notice of alibi, but the defense counsel called only one witness-petitioner's mother-to testify at the trial. Petitioner testified that he had two attorneys prior to his trial. He stated that the first attorney did not interview any of the alibi witnesses. However, this attorney withdrew three months before the trial at which time he turned over the case file to the second attorney and discussed the case with him. The second attorney interviewed the two eyewitnesses, the two police officers assigned to the case and the three potential alibi witnesses, petitioner's mother, his brother, and his brother's girlfriend.

Petitioner's brother, Gary Hollonquest, testified that he had been working at their mother's house on the day of the crime and was with petitioner until approximately 10:00 p.m. that night. He testified that defense counsel did not allow him to testify because his testimony would only be repetitive of their mother's testimony. The two police officers and the two attorneys also testified at the hearing as to what had occurred during the pretrial and trial of this cause. The trial court subsequently denied post-conviction relief.

I.

Petitioner first argues that he was denied...

To continue reading

Request your trial
33 practice notes
  • Woods v. State, No. 06S00-9403-PD-224
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • November 23, 1998
    ...record development allows an ineffectiveness claim to be presented for the first time in collateral proceedings. Hollonquest v. State, 432 N.E.2d 37 (Ind.1982) and Williams v. State, 464 N.E.2d 893 (Ind.1984) both involved an ineffective assistance claim based on trial counsel's failure to ......
  • Davis v. State, No. 581S145
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • April 13, 1983
    ...counsel is competent and that strong and convincing evidence is required to rebut the presumption. Hollonquest v. State, (1982) Ind., 432 N.E.2d 37; Lindley v. State, (1981) Ind., 426 N.E.2d 398; Jones v. State, (1978) 270 Ind. 141, 387 N.E.2d 440. Incompetency of counsel revolves around th......
  • Matheney v. State, No. 45S00-9207-PD-584
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • November 24, 1997
    ...its waiver from post-conviction consideration. Spranger v. State, 650 N.E.2d 1117, 1121 (Ind.1995) (citing Hollonquest v. State, 432 N.E.2d 37, 39 However, when the same attorney represents a defendant both at trial and on appeal and does not raise on appeal the issue of trial counsel ineff......
  • Brown v. State, No. 181S13
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • December 29, 1982
    ...counsel is competent and that strong and convincing evidence is required to rebut the presumption. Hollonquest v. State, (1982) Ind., 432 N.E.2d 37; Lindley v. State, (1981) Ind., 426 N.E.2d 398; Jones v. State, (1978) 270 Ind. 141, 387 N.E.2d 440. Incompetency of counsel revolves around th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
33 cases
  • Woods v. State, No. 06S00-9403-PD-224
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • November 23, 1998
    ...record development allows an ineffectiveness claim to be presented for the first time in collateral proceedings. Hollonquest v. State, 432 N.E.2d 37 (Ind.1982) and Williams v. State, 464 N.E.2d 893 (Ind.1984) both involved an ineffective assistance claim based on trial counsel's failure to ......
  • Davis v. State, No. 581S145
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • April 13, 1983
    ...counsel is competent and that strong and convincing evidence is required to rebut the presumption. Hollonquest v. State, (1982) Ind., 432 N.E.2d 37; Lindley v. State, (1981) Ind., 426 N.E.2d 398; Jones v. State, (1978) 270 Ind. 141, 387 N.E.2d 440. Incompetency of counsel revolves around th......
  • Matheney v. State, No. 45S00-9207-PD-584
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • November 24, 1997
    ...its waiver from post-conviction consideration. Spranger v. State, 650 N.E.2d 1117, 1121 (Ind.1995) (citing Hollonquest v. State, 432 N.E.2d 37, 39 However, when the same attorney represents a defendant both at trial and on appeal and does not raise on appeal the issue of trial counsel ineff......
  • Brown v. State, No. 181S13
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • December 29, 1982
    ...counsel is competent and that strong and convincing evidence is required to rebut the presumption. Hollonquest v. State, (1982) Ind., 432 N.E.2d 37; Lindley v. State, (1981) Ind., 426 N.E.2d 398; Jones v. State, (1978) 270 Ind. 141, 387 N.E.2d 440. Incompetency of counsel revolves around th......
  • 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