Wrinkles v. State

• Decision Date: 29 June 2001
• Docket Number: No. 82S00-9803-PD-170.,82S00-9803-PD-170.
• Parties: Matthew Eric WRINKLES, Appellant-Petitioner, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Respondent.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

749 N.E.2d 1179

Matthew Eric WRINKLES, Appellant-Petitioner, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Respondent.

No. 82S00-9803-PD-170.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

June 29, 2001.

Susan K. Carpenter, Public Defender of Indiana, Joanna Green, Deputy Public Defender, Laura L. Volk, Deputy Public Defender, Linda Hughes, Deputy Public Defender, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellant.

Karen M. Freeman-Wilson, Attorney General of Indiana, Thomas D. Perkins, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee. RUCKER, Justice.

After a trial by jury, Matthew Eric Wrinkles was convicted of three counts of murder in the shooting deaths of his wife Debbie Wrinkles, his brother-in-law Mark Fulkerson, and his sister-in-law Natalie Fulkerson. Following the jury's recommendation, the trial court sentenced him to death. We affirmed his convictions and sentence on direct appeal. See Wrinkles v. State, 690 N.E.2d 1156 (Ind.1997)

. Thereafter, Wrinkles filed a petition for post-conviction relief and now appeals the denial of that petition raising several issues for our review, which we consolidate and rephrase as follows: (1) did Wrinkles receive ineffective assistance of trial counsel during the guilt, penalty, and sentencing phases of trial; and (2) did Wrinkles receive ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.

We affirm the post-conviction court's denial of Wrinkles' petition for post-conviction relief.

Factual and Procedural Background

In June 1994, Wrinkles' wife Debbie and the couple's two children, Lindsay and Seth, moved into the Evansville home of Mark and Natalie Fulkerson, Debbie's brother and sister-in-law. Wrinkles filed for divorce on June 30, 1994, and Debbie obtained a protective order that same day prohibiting Wrinkles from having any contact with her and the children.

At a provisional divorce hearing on July 20, 1994, Debbie agreed to a rescission of the protective order, and Wrinkles and Debbie agreed that Debbie would retain custody of the children but Wrinkles would have reasonable visitation rights. Wrinkles and Debbie agreed to meet later that day at a local fast food restaurant so that Wrinkles could see his children, whom he had not seen in over a month. However, Debbie and the children never showed up. Wrinkles called his divorce attorney, who told him that although nothing could be done that night because the courts were closed, he would take care of it tomorrow. Wrinkles, still frustrated, called the Fulkerson home to speak with Debbie, but she was not there. When Debbie returned later that night, she called Wrinkles to set up a meeting for the next day, but there was no answer.

Around 2 a.m. on July 21, 1994, Wrinkles parked his truck a block away from the Fulkerson home, put on camouflage clothing, painted his face, and armed himself with a .357 magnum revolver and a knife. He then climbed over a fence into the Fulkersons' backyard, cut the telephone wires, and kicked in the back door. Wrinkles first approached Mark in his bedroom, shooting him four times in the presence of his three-year-old son. Awakened by the gunshots, Debbie entered the bedroom hallway and saw that Wrinkles had shot her brother. Debbie, who had already grabbed her gun for protection, shot Wrinkles in the arm and then fell to the floor. Lindsay, also awakened by the gunshots, entered the bedroom hallway and, upon seeing her father about to shoot her mother, pleaded, "Dad, please don't shoot Mom." R. at 2090.¹ Wrinkles responded "shut up" and then shot Debbie in the chest. R. at 2091. In the meantime, Natalie ran out the front door. Wrinkles followed Natalie onto the front porch and shot her in the face at close range. Subsequent autopsies revealed that Mark, Debbie, and Natalie each died from gunshot wounds.

Police apprehended Wrinkles later that morning in Warrick County. The State charged Wrinkles with three counts of murder that same day and filed a notice of its intent to seek the death penalty on July 28, 1994. The trial court appointed salaried, part-time public defenders Dennis Vowels and Michael Danks to represent Wrinkles. The trial was held on May 15-19, 1995. The defense theory at trial was that because of a combination of Debbie depriving Wrinkles of access to his children and his methamphetamine addiction, Wrinkles broke into the Fulkerson home to get his children and shot the victims only after Debbie shot him and the other victims pointed guns at him. The jury found him guilty as charged. The penalty phase was held on May 20, 1995, and the jury returned a recommendation of death. A month later, the trial court, finding that the multiple murder aggravator² outweighed the mitigators, imposed the death penalty. Wrinkles appealed his convictions and sentence, and we affirmed. Wrinkles v. State, 690 N.E.2d 1156 (Ind. 1997). Wrinkles then filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court denied. This appeal ensued.

Wrinkles raises several issues in this appeal, most of which are either waived or are subject to the doctrine of res judicata.³ We address the merits of those that remain: (1) did Wrinkles receive ineffective assistance of trial counsel during the guilt, penalty, and sentencing phases of trial; and (2) did Wrinkles receive ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.

Standard of Review for Post-Conviction

Post-conviction procedures do not afford the convicted an opportunity for a "super-appeal." Ben-Yisrayl v. State, 729 N.E.2d 102, 105 (Ind.2000),reh'g denied, petition for cert. filed, ___ U.S.L.W. ___ (U.S. Mar. 14, 2001) (No. 00-9185). Rather, they create a narrow remedy for subsequent collateral challenges to convictions which must be based on grounds enumerated in the post-conviction rules. Id.; Williams v. State, 724 N.E.2d 1070, 1076 (Ind.2000),cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 121 S.Ct. 886, 148 L.Ed.2d 793 (2001). Petitioners must establish their grounds for relief by a preponderance of the evidence. Ind. Post-Conviction Rule 1(5). A petitioner who has been denied post-conviction relief appeals from a negative judgment. Prowell v. State, 741 N.E.2d 704, 708 (Ind.2001). Therefore, the petitioner must convince the court that the evidence as a whole leads unerringly and unmistakably to a decision opposite that reached by the post-conviction court. Id.; Ben-Yisrayl, 729 N.E.2d at 106

. Stated differently, "[t]his Court will disturb a post-conviction court's decision as being contrary to law only where the evidence is without conflict and leads to but one conclusion, and the post-conviction court has reached the opposite conclusion." Miller v. State, 702 N.E.2d 1053, 1058 (Ind.1998).

In the present case, the post-conviction court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Indiana Post-Conviction Rule 1(6). A post-conviction court's findings and judgment will be reversed only upon a showing of clear error—that which leaves us with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Prowell, 741 N.E.2d at 708; Ben-Yisrayl, 729 N.E.2d at 106. Wrinkles, however, argues that we should apply the clearly erroneous standard "with a little more bite" because the post-conviction court's findings of facts and conclusions of law are a virtually verbatim copy of those proposed by the State. Reply Br. of Appellant at 2 (quotation omitted). We recently addressed a trial court's wholesale adoption of a party's findings of fact and conclusions of law in Prowell:

It is not uncommon for a trial court to enter findings that are verbatim reproductions of submissions by the prevailing party. The trial courts of this state are faced with an enormous volume of cases and few have the law clerks and other resources that would be available in a more perfect world to help craft more elegant trial court findings and legal reasoning. We recognize that the need to keep the docket moving is properly a high priority of our trial bench. For this reason, we do not prohibit the practice of adopting a party's proposed findings. But when this occurs, there is an inevitable erosion of the confidence of an appellate court that the findings reflect the considered judgment of the trial court. This is particularly true when the issues in the case turn less on the credibility of witnesses than on the inferences to be drawn from the facts and the legal effect of essentially unchallenged testimony.

Prowell, 741 N.E.2d at 708-09. Although we reiterate the foregoing concerns here, we decline Wrinkles' invitation to modify our standard of review.

Standard of Review for Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

To establish a post-conviction claim alleging violation of the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel, a defendant must establish before the post-conviction court the two components set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 390, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000). First, a defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687,104 S.Ct. 2052. This requires showing that counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as "counsel" guaranteed to the defendant by the Sixth Amendment. Id. at 687-88, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Second, a defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. Id. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052. This requires showing that counsel's errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable. Id. To establish prejudice, a defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would be different. Id. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. Id.

Further, counsel's performance is presumed effective, and a defendant...