Sotelo v. State, No. 779S205
| Docket Nº | No. 779S205 |
| Citation | 408 N.E.2d 1215, 273 Ind. 694 |
| Case Date | August 21, 1980 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
Page 1215
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
[273 Ind. 695] Nile Stanton, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Thomas D. Quigley, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
DeBRULER, Justice.
Appellant, Raul Rudi Sotelo, was convicted of murder in a 1974 trial by jury in the Superior Court of Lake County. He received a life sentence, and his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal to this Court. See Sotelo v. State, (1976) 264 Ind. 298, 342 N.E.2d 844.
Following a hearing upon a subsequently filed petition for post-conviction relief, the trial court below entered its findings of fact and conclusions of law for the State in 1979. Therein the trial court concluded that petitioner had not been denied the adequate assistance of counsel at his 1974 trial. From this judgment Sotelo has prosecuted this appeal.
At the post-conviction hearing the burden was with appellant, the petitioner, to establish his grounds for relief by a preponderance of the [273 Ind. 696] evidence. Ind.R.P.C. 1, § 5. In appealing from the judgment of the trial court against him appellant must satisfy this Court that the evidence as a whole was such that it leads unerringly and unmistakably
Page 1216
to a decision in his favor; that is, one opposite to that reached by the trial court. Only then can appellant prevail here.Appellant, at age eighteen, was convicted of killing a girl twelve years of age whom he had been unable to convince to have sexual relations with him. He did so by running over her repeatedly with his automobile. The defense at trial was insanity. Appellant concedes that trial counsel prepared extensively for trial, took depositions and attempted to zealously defend him at trial; but nonetheless complains that trial counsel was not adequate because "(1) the interests of justice truly militate strongly in favor of setting aside Sotelo's conviction, and (2) trial counsel could have produced for the jury's consideration additional and significantly substantial material evidence" in the form of lay opinion testimony on the issue of insanity and his own testimony in support of the defense of insanity.
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides in pertinent part:
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense."
The Indiana Constitution in Art. I, § 13, provides in part:
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the right . . . to be heard by . . . counsel . . . ."
Both constitutions guarantee defense counsel who will actually provide professional legal assistance and be heard from.
In Magley v. State, (1975) 263 Ind. 618, 335 N.E.2d 811, the appellate approach in dealing with this issue was presented:
"Counsel is presumed to have prepared and executed his client's defense effectively. State v. Irvin (1973), 259 Ind. 610, 291 N.E.2d 70; Robbins v. State (1971), 257 Ind. 273, 274 N.E.2d 255. This presumption is rationally grounded in the educational and other requirements for admission to the practice of law, but is rebuttable by strong and convincing proof. Robbins v. State, supra. In resolving the issue, a court should consider the totality of the circumstances[273 Ind. 697] surrounding counsel's pre-trial preparation and the actual conduct of the trial. Lowe v. State (1973) 260 Ind. 610, 298 N.E.2d 421; Blackburn v. State (1973) 260 Ind. 5, 291 N.E.2d 686; Sargeant v. State (1973) 157 Ind.App. 173, 299 N.E.2d 219. Perfunctory representation is not enough. Wilson v. State (1943), 222 Ind. 63, 51 N.E.2d 848; Castro v. State (1925), 196 Ind. 385, 147 N.E. 321. Counsel must have reasonable time for pre-trial preparation. Hartman v. State (1973) 155 Ind.App. 199, 292 N.E.2d 293. Deliberate choices made by counsel for some contemplated tactical or strategic reason which turn out to be detrimental to the client's cause do not establish ineffective representation. Henry v. Mississippi (1965), 379 U.S. 443, 85 S.Ct. 564, 13 L.Ed.2d 408; Lowe v. State, supra." 263 Ind. at 621, 335 N.E.2d at 814.
The trial court made special findings on point. He found that defense counsel had engaged in extensive research and preparation for the trial of this case, and did...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sotelo v. Indiana State Prison, 87-2191
...We can therefore find no error in the admission of the Appellant's confession into evidence. 342 N.E.2d at 848. 2 In Sotelo v. State, 273 Ind. 694, 408 N.E.2d 1215 (1980), (Sotelo's appeal of the denial of post-conviction relief) the court held that Sotelo was not denied effective assistanc......
-
Shull v. State, 2-780A214
...379 U.S. 443, 85 S.Ct. 564, 13 L.Ed.2d 408; Lowe v. State, supra." 263 Ind. at 621, 335 N.E.2d at 814. Sotelo v. State, (1980) Ind., 408 N.E.2d 1215, We initially note that each error of counsel individually may not be sufficient to prove ineffective representation; however, the errors coll......
-
Lowe v. State, 282S46
...and unmistakably to a decision in his favor; that is, one opposite to that reached by the trial court." Sotelo v. State, (1980) Ind., 408 N.E.2d 1215, Lowe first contends that the trial court erred by not entering specific written findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to all ......
-
Williams v. State, 1284S475
...adequate or effective when he fails to produce any evidence at all from available sources in support of a defense. Sotelo v. State (1980), 273 Ind. 694, 408 N.E.2d Trial counsel should have brought the financial handicaps inherent in the case to the attention of the trial court long before ......
-
Sotelo v. Indiana State Prison, No. 87-2191
...We can therefore find no error in the admission of the Appellant's confession into evidence. 342 N.E.2d at 848. 2 In Sotelo v. State, 273 Ind. 694, 408 N.E.2d 1215 (1980), (Sotelo's appeal of the denial of post-conviction relief) the court held that Sotelo was not denied effective assistanc......
-
Shull v. State, No. 2-780A214
...U.S. 443, 85 S.Ct. 564, 13 L.Ed.2d 408; Lowe v. State, supra." 263 Ind. at 621, 335 N.E.2d at 814. Sotelo v. State, (1980) Ind., 408 N.E.2d 1215, We initially note that each error of counsel individually may not be sufficient to prove ineffective representation; however, the errors col......
-
Lowe v. State, No. 282S46
...unmistakably to a decision in his favor; that is, one opposite to that reached by the trial court." Sotelo v. State, (1980) Ind., 408 N.E.2d 1215, Lowe first contends that the trial court erred by not entering specific written findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to all......
-
Williams v. State, No. 1284S475
...adequate or effective when he fails to produce any evidence at all from available sources in support of a defense. Sotelo v. State (1980), 273 Ind. 694, 408 N.E.2d Trial counsel should have brought the financial handicaps inherent in the case to the attention of the trial court long before ......