Staples v. State
| Decision Date | 06 September 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 881S212,881S212 |
| Citation | 452 N.E.2d 985 |
| Parties | William Walter STAPLES, Jr., Appellant (Defendant Below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below). |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Charles E. Weiner, Valparaiso, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Michael Gene Worden, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Defendant (Appellant) was convicted, following a trial by jury, of two counts of Murder, Ind. Code Sec. 35-42-1-1 (Burns 1979), and was sentenced to one hundred twenty (120) years imprisonment. This direct appeal presents the following issues:
1. Whether Defendant was denied the effective assistance of counsel.
2. Whether the trial court erred in summarily denying Defendant's "Amended Motion To Correct Errors."
3. Whether the trial court improperly imposed consecutive sentences.
4. Whether the trial court sentenced Defendant for a Rape neither charged nor proved at trial.
5. Whether the trial court erroneously failed to consider mitigating circumstances in imposing the sentence.
6. Whether the trial court improperly considered as aggravating circumstances the victims' ages and infirmities, which assertedly were not proven at trial.
7. Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions.
* * *
This case has been presented to us in a procedural quagmire. After expenditure of considerable judicial time combing the record, and to avoid the potential for any appearance of a miscarriage of justice, we take the extraordinary step of reversing the trial court's order of March 24, 1982, which denied Defendant's Amended Motion To Correct Errors. We have concluded that this motion should have been treated as a petition for post conviction relief under post conviction rule one rather than under post conviction rule two, as appears to have been done. The record reflects that appellate counsel, possibly in good faith but clearly in error, led the trial court astray with the result that the evidence upon the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel has never been considered. Accordingly, we express no opinion upon Issue I.
Defendant was represented at trial by the Public Defender, Mr. McDowell, who filed a Motion To Correct Errors on June 3, 1981. That motion understandably did not allege ineffective assistance of counsel as ground for a new trial. Appellate counsel Mr. Weiner, entered his appearance on June 18, 1981, and the Motion To Correct Errors was denied on June 22, 1981. On June 26, 1981 counsel filed a praecipe for the record, which was not certified by the trial court until February 26, 1982. During this delay, counsel obtained extensions of time from this Court in which to file the record and subsequently sought and obtained such an extension for filing the brief.
Both sides have filed supplemental records, which explain the necessity for the extensions. On March 23, 1982, after the record on appeal had been filed with this Court, appellate counsel filed a "Request For Permission To File Amended Motion To Correct Errors," which included an amended motion to correct errors and affidavits in support thereof, and which invoked post conviction rule two. This motion raised the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel and other new assignments of error. The request was granted, and on March 24, 1982 the trial court summarily denied the Amended Motion To Correct Errors. On April 6, 1982 counsel filed a praecipe, which specifically requested a transcript of any hearing held upon the amended motion to correct errors. The record, however, contains no record of any such hearing.
For reasons that are not clear from the record, the trial court erroneously granted permission to file the amended motion to correct errors. Ind.R.P.C. 2, Sec. 1(a) provides:
"Any defendant convicted after a trial or plea of guilty may petition the court of conviction for permission to file a belated motion for new trial, where: (a) no timely and adequate motion to correct error was filed for the defendant;"
Defendant's request contained no allegation with respect to prior motions, no doubt because a timely motion to correct errors had been previously submitted and denied. Having erroneously entertained the motion, undoubtedly without knowledge of its duplicity, the trial court treated the motion as it would have any other motion to correct errors.
The subsequent proceedings confirm that confusion prevailed upon this amended motion to correct errors. On April 27, 1982, the court set the motion for an evidentiary hearing for May 14, 1982. The matter was continued to June 4, 1982 at which time a hearing was held. At that hearing, the State indicated that it wanted to present evidence upon the defendant's motion. Discussion ensued in which the court specifically referred to the motion as an amended motion to correct errors rather than a belated motion to correct errors, the label counsel was using. Counsel also objected to the State's request to present evidence:
"BY MR. WEINER: I think at this point, the Supreme Court has to consider the record, to what is there at this time, and if they decide that, from what they can see in the record, there is ineffective or incompetent counsel, then they can send it back to the trial court, either with instructions to give Mr. Staples a new trial, or hear evidence as to Mr. McDowell's ineffectiveness as Willie Staples' counsel." R. at 16-17.
The evidentiary hearing, although eventually ordered for July 8, 1982, was continued sine die on that date because counsel failed to appear.
Thus, instead of a transcript, we have before us an appendix to the Defendant's Brief, numbered pages B-1 to B-297, which appear to be documents that would have been presented at the evidentiary hearing, had there been one. In response, the State has moved to strike this appendix, asserting that the exhibits contained therein have never been presented to the trial court. The State's assertion is correct, except for pages B-291 to B-297, which consist of affidavits by persons who reiterate the contents of their prior affidavits attached to the amended motion to correct errors.
The State's Motion To Strike is granted. Defendant's exhibits have not been presented to the trial court and consequently, are not part of the record on appeal. We are at a loss to comprehend how counsel intended to litigate Defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel as part of the appeal herein, after that appeal had been docketed with this Court and without having first presented the evidence in support of such claim to the trial court. Counsel's pleading, though invoking the rule applicable to a belated motion to correct errors, was not a belated motion. A timely motion to correct errors had been filed. The pleading was, instead, a second, not an amended, motion to correct errors, filed after the first one had been denied. There is no authority in the trial rules or case law for such a motion. Fancher v. State, (1982) Ind., 436 N.E.2d 311. It appears from counsel's having pursued an appeal from the denial of the first motion to correct errors, that he understood the futility of a second motion to correct errors. Most important, however, counsel admitted to the trial court that this Court would have the option of ordering an evidentiary hearing upon this claim. We grant the motion to strike, choosing to regard the amended motion to correct errors as a petition for post conviction relief under Ind.R.P.C. 1 and, therefore, order the March...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hurst v. State
...aggravating factors with an alternate order to impose the presumptive sentence if the judge could not comply. See, e.g., Staples v. State, (1983) Ind., 452 N.E.2d 985. ...
-
Calloway v. State
...in the trial rules or case law to support a second motion to correct error after the first such motion has been denied. Staples v. State (1983), Ind., 452 N.E.2d 985; Fancher v. State (1982), Ind., 436 N.E.2d 311. Once a ruling is made on a motion to correct error the time allowed for perfe......