Waters v. State, 18S00-8605-PC-415
| Decision Date | 10 July 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 18S00-8605-PC-415,18S00-8605-PC-415 |
| Citation | 574 N.E.2d 911 |
| Parties | Mitchell L. WATERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Mitchell L. Waters, pro se.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Gary Damon Secrest, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
This is a direct appeal from the denial of post-conviction relief. In 1979, Waters was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The conviction and sentence was affirmed by this Court. Waters v. State (1981), 275 Ind. 182, 415 N.E.2d 711. After examining the evidence submitted in the post-conviction proceedings, the trial court denied relief because Waters failed to meet his burden of proof. Waters now contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel in the post-conviction proceedings because:
1. Counsel failed to apprise himself of the case law and procedural rules relevant to the case;
2. Counsel failed to gather and introduce the evidence necessary to support the petition; and
3. Counsel's conduct was unreasonable overall.
In Baum v. State (1989), Ind., 533 N.E.2d 1200, 1201, we addressed the standard of performance required of post-conviction counsel:
The right to counsel in post-conviction proceedings is guaranteed by neither the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution nor art. 1 Sec. 13 of the Constitution of Indiana. A petition for post-conviction relief is not generally regarded as a criminal proceeding and does not call for a public trial within the meaning of these constitutional provisions. (Citation omitted) It thus is not required that the constitutional standards be employed when judging the performance of counsel when prosecuting a post-conviction petition at the trial level or at the appellate level.
We therefore apply a lesser standard responsive more to the due course of law or due process of law principles which are at the heart of the civil post-conviction remedy. We adopt the standard that if counsel in fact appeared and represented the petitioner in a procedurally fair setting which resulted in a judgment of the court, it is not necessary to judge his performance by the rigorous standards set forth in Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674.
We conclude that the conduct of Waters' post-conviction relief counsel was such that Waters did not receive a fair hearing on his petition, because, although Waters' attorney entered an appearance for him, no actual legal representation occurred. Accordingly, remand is proper.
The facts are as follow. On February 25, 1985, Waters filed his pro se petition for post-conviction relief alleging seven separate grounds for such relief. On March 25, 1985, counsel entered an appearance for Waters. On July 8, 1985, the trial court ordered that the evidence supporting the petition for relief be by affidavit only, and was to be submitted on or before October 3, 1985. Within such time, on September 23, 1985, Waters submitted his affidavits pro se. It was not until October 25, 1985, twenty-two days after affidavits were to have been submitted according to the trial court's order, that counsel filed a petition for instructions because the State had filed no counter-affidavits or other evidence. In response to the petition for instructions, the trial court stated that October 3, 1985, was the date by which evidence was to have been submitted by affidavit and that the parties were permitted to file responsive affidavits twenty-one days thereafter. Thus, concluded the trial court, because no responsive affidavits were filed as of October 25, 1985, the matter was deemed submitted to the court. Counsel filed no further petitions, amendments or affidavits on behalf of Waters.
In ruling on the relief petition, the trial court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Taylor v. State
...today ..., this Court determined that post-conviction counsel's performance denied the petitioner a fair hearing. As in [Waters v. State, 574 N.E.2d 911, 912 (Ind.1991)], wherein counsel presented no evidence in support of his client's claim, in [Bahm v. State, 789 N.E.2d 50, 61-62 (Ind.Ct.......
-
Hill v. State
...1 (P–C.R.1) proceedings. See, e.g., Matheney v. State, 834 N.E.2d 658, 661–63 (Ind.2005); Graves, 823 N.E.2d at 1197; Waters v. State, 574 N.E.2d 911, 912 (Ind.1991). The question remains: which standard— Strickland or Baum—is appropriate for judging the performance of counsel in conjunctio......
-
Daniels v. State
...standard set forth in Strickland v. Washington. Id. at 1201 (citation omitted). This Court applied the Baum standard in Waters v. State, 574 N.E.2d 911 (Ind. 1991), and reversed the denial of a petition for post-conviction relief. In Waters, the defendant/petitioner filed a pro se petition;......
-
Taylor v. State
...denied a procedurally fair setting for review of the petition, we will remand for new post-conviction proceedings. See Waters v. State, 574 N.E.2d 911, 912 (Ind.1991). Since Baum, several Indiana decisions have further examined what constitutes a procedurally fair setting. In Waters, our Su......