Brent D. Sharp v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2015 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Nov 30 2015, 7:50 am
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this
Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as
precedent or cited before any court except for the
purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
APPELLANT, PRO SE ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
Brent D. Sharp Gregory F. Zoeller
Wabash Valley Correctional Facility Attorney General of Indiana
Carlisle, Indiana
Jodi Kathryn Stein
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Brent D. Sharp, November 30, 2015
Appellant-Petitioner, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A02-1410-PC-728
v. Appeal from the Delaware Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, Trial Court Cause No.
18C02-1306-FA-10
Appellee-Defendant.
The Honorable Kimberly Dowling,
Judge
Pyle, Judge.
Statement of the Case
[1] Appellant/Petitioner, Brent D. Sharp (“Sharp”), appeals the trial court’s denial
of his petition for post-conviction relief, in which he requested relief from his
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1410-PC-728 | November 30, 2015 Page 1 of 28
convictions for two counts of Class A felony burglary resulting in bodily injury
and one count each of: Class B felony rape; Class D felony criminal
confinement; Class A felony criminal deviate conduct; Class A felony child
molesting; and Class C felony criminal confinement.
[2] Sharp was convicted after DNA taken from the victims of the above offenses
matched his DNA sample in Indiana’s DNA database. On direct appeal,
Sharp’s appellate counsel contested the submission of Sharp’s DNA sample into
the DNA database and argued that Sharp’s trial counsel had been ineffective for
failing to object to the admission of the DNA sample evidence at trial. This
Court held that Sharp was collaterally estopped from challenging the
submission of the DNA sample because he had previously litigated the issue in
another cause. For the same reason, we held that Sharp’s trial counsel was not
ineffective for failing to object to the DNA evidence at trial.
[3] Sharp, pro se, then filed a petition for post-conviction relief. In his petition, he
argued that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise several
additional claims of trial counsel ineffectiveness on appeal and for failing to
present an issue competently. Sharp asserts that his appellate counsel should
have raised that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to:
(1) request a change of judge; (2) request a severance of the charges against
Sharp; (3) object to the State’s questions about the Indiana DNA database and a
witness’s reference to Sharp as a convicted offender; (4) object to the admission
of evidence of Sharp’s DNA sample at trial; and (5) object to improper
aggravating factors upon sentencing. Sharp also argued that his appellate
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1410-PC-728 | November 30, 2015 Page 2 of 28
counsel failed to present his ineffective assistance of trial counsel argument
competently on appeal. The post-conviction court denied Sharp’s petition.
[4] On appeal, Sharp argues that the post-conviction court erred in finding that he
had received effective assistance on each of the above issues. Because we do
not find that Sharp met his burden on post-conviction, we affirm the post-
conviction court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief.
[5] We affirm.
Issue
Whether Sharp’s appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance.
Facts
[6] We stated the facts underlying Sharp’s conviction in our opinion on his direct
appeal as follows:
In December 2002, Tyjuana Thompson was living in Muncie
with her two daughters, fourteen-year-old J.L.[] and nine-year-
old A.L. On the evening of December 13, Thompson left for
work around 10:00 p.m. After J.L. went to bed approximately
one-half hour later, she woke up at some point and felt a
sensation on her leg. Looking at the doorway, J.L. noticed a
man who she initially thought was her cousin, Christopher, who
had been released from prison a few months earlier. Christopher
also lived next door to Thompson. The man, who wore a tan
coat and a ski mask that covered his face, was subsequently
identified as Sharp. Sharp approached J.L. and began to choke
her. When J.L. began to fight, Sharp choked her harder and
smothered her face with a pillow. Sharp then removed J.L.’s
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1410-PC-728 | November 30, 2015 Page 3 of 28
shorts and underwear and inserted his penis into her vagina. At
some point during the assault, J.L. lost consciousness.
When J.L. awoke, she was lying on the floor, cross-legged, and
her arms were bound with duct tape behind her back. Her mouth
was also covered with tape, and she was wearing only a t-shirt.
Eventually, J.L. crawled into her sister’s room, where A.L. was
able to remove the duct tape. The girls then called Thompson at
work and told her about the incident.
The police were notified, and J.L. was transported to Ball
Memorial Hospital in Muncie, where a sexual assault evidence
examination was performed. During the examination of J.L.,
Dr. Max Rudicel found evidence of forced penetration. Indiana
State Police forensic scientist Karen Bruewer analyzed the
evidence and discovered sperm on the vaginal and cervical slides
and swabs, the external genital swabs, and the vaginal wash. She
forwarded this evidence to the Indiana State Police in Lowell,
where forensic DNA analyst Nicole Ihnat prepared DNA
profiles. It was determined that J.L.’s cousin, Christopher, was
eliminated as a contributor of the sperm. Moreover, an initial
search in the Indiana DNA database produced no matches.
On the evening of May 22, 2003, Jessica Woolums was
babysitting for her six young cousins at a Muncie residence.
After Jessica helped her seven-year-old cousin, C.W., do her
homework, they fell asleep in the living room with the other
children. At some point, a man wearing a bandana and winter
hat entered the house, picked up C.W., and carried her to a back
room of the residence. The man, who was subsequently
identified as Sharp, asked C.W. how old she was. After C.W.
replied that she was seven years old, Sharp, who was armed with
a knife, removed C.W.’s clothing. He then choked C.W. to the
point of unconsciousness. When she awoke, Sharp carried C.W.
to the kitchen, where he inserted his penis into her anus and
attempted to insert his penis into her vagina. Sharp then carried
C.W. into the dining room where he again sexually assaulted
her. Apparently, Jessica and the other children slept through this
episode.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1410-PC-728 | November 30, 2015 Page 4 of 28
After Sharp left the residence, C.W. and Jessica went next door
for help. The police were contacted, and C.W. was eventually
transported to Ball Memorial Hospital, where two sexual assault
evidence kits were taken. Dr. Rudicel observed that C.W. had
been choked, and Dr. Lopiccolo noticed a tear to C.W.’s anus,
evidence of forced penetration, and a white opaque cloudy
material in C.W.’s rectum. Bruewer, the Indiana State Police
forensic scientist, analyzed the evidence and discovered the
presence of semen on both the rectal swab and the rectal smear
slide.
Prior to these incidents, Sharp had been convicted of burglary in
1999, was sentenced to a three-year suspended sentence and was
placed on probation until December 2, 2002, for that offense. In
June 2003, Sharp’s probation officer filed a petition to revoke
probation, alleging that Sharp had failed to meet various
conditions of probation that had been imposed upon
him. Although the probation officer was aware of Sharp’s
violations when they occurred, the deputy prosecutor did not file
the petition to revoke until June 2003, long after Sharp’s
probation had ended. As a consequence, on August 21, 2003,
Sharp moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that it had
not been timely filed. The trial court denied the motion on
August 25, 2003, placed Sharp back on probation, and ordered
Sharp to provide a DNA sample. Prior to his release from the
jail, Sharp submitted a DNA sample that was subsequently
entered into the State’s DNA database. Sharp provided the
DNA sample in accordance with a nunc pro tunc order entered
on September 16, 2003. This order stated that Sharp’s DNA
sample should have been taken when he was convicted of
burglary in 1999, and that his DNA should have already been
included in the database.
During the course of the investigation of the above incidents, the
police department requested neighbors and family members of
the victims to submit to voluntary DNA testing. Also, on
September 12, 2003, a search was conducted in the DNA
database, where it was determined that the DNA profile in J.L.’s
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1410-PC-728 | November 30, 2015 Page 5 of 28
case matched the DNA of Sharp, whose sample had been entered
into the database in accordance with the trial court’s order
regarding the burglary offense and the probation revocation.
Four days later, Nicole Ihnat prepared DNA profiles from the
evidence that was gathered from the incident involving C.W.
The DNA profile generated from the seminal material found on
the rectal slide in C.W.’s case matched that of Sharp, who lived
next door to C.W.
Thereafter, on October 3, 2003, Sharp was charged with [Count
1, Class A felony burglary resulting in bodily injury; Count 2,
Class B felony rape; Count 3, Class D felony criminal
confinement; Count 4, Class A felony burglary resulting in bodily
injury; Count 5, Class A felony criminal deviate conduct; Count
6, Class A felony child molesting; and Count 7, Class C felony
criminal confinement.] He then filed a motion to suppress the
DNA evidence, contending that the sample had been obtained in
violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States
Constitution as well as Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana
Constitution. In ruling on Sharp’s motion, the trial court
observed that Sharp’s DNA sample had been taken pursuant to
the nunc pro tunc order that had been issued.
Sharp then appealed the revocation of his probation in the
burglary case, and we determined that the petition to revoke
probation had not been timely filed because three of the bases
that the State alleged to support the petition occurred after the
probationary period had ended. See Sharp v. State, 807 N.E.2d
765, 767 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). In our opinion that was handed
down on May 3, 2004, we observed that[:]
Because the probation officer knew of the violations for
which the trial court revoked Sharp’s probation but did not
file a petition to revoke until seven months after Sharp’s
probationary period ended, we find that the petition
should have been dismissed as untimely.
Id. at 768. We further found that Sharp’s challenge to the
constitutionality of Indiana Code section 10–13–6–10, the statute
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1410-PC-728 | November 30, 2015 Page 6 of 28
governing and creating Indiana’s DNA database, was waived
because he did not make a proper objection in the trial court. Id.
In this case, after a hearing on Sharp’s motion to suppress, the
trial court denied the motion on November 16, 2004, and
adopted the order that another trial court judge in Delaware
County Circuit Court 3 had issued when Sharp presented the
same issues regarding the admissibility of DNA evidence. In
particular, the trial court in both cases determined that Sharp was
collaterally estopped from relitigating the constitutionality of the
taking of his DNA sample because that issue had already been
litigated in the appeal from the probation revocation. Also, as
the State pointed out in its response to Sharp’s motion to
suppress:
3. The Defendant appealed the seizure of his blood under
Cause # 18D02–9902–CF–13. The Court of Appeals
affirmed that portion of the trial court’s decision requiring
Defendant to submit a blood sample. Sharp v. State, 807
N.E.2d 765 ([Ind. Ct. App. 2004]). The Defendant had a
full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in that case.
Any attempt, in this case, to attack the acquisition of
Defendant’s blood sample out of 18D02–9902–CF–13 is
prohibited by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral
estoppel.
4. Additionally, in the Delaware Circuit Court 3, State of
Indiana v. Brent Sharp, 18C03–0310–FA–19, the
[D]efendant filed a Motion to Suppress that is identical to
the Motion filed in the case at bar. The Delaware Circuit
Court 3 Court denied the [D]efendant’s motion. In the
Circuit Court 3 case, the [D]efendant attempted to
relitigate the same issues as raised in Delaware Circuit
Court 2 and the Indiana Court of Appeals, just as he is
attempting in the case at bar. The Delaware Circuit Court
3 held that the doctrine of collateral estoppel prohibited
the Defendant from relitigating.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1410-PC-728 | November 30, 2015 Page 7 of 28
Sharp v. State, 835 N.E.2d 1079, 1081-83 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (internal citations
and footnotes omitted).
[7] The trial court held a jury trial on the charges against Sharp on November 29,
2004 through December 1, 2004. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found
Sharp guilty as charged. Then, in a hearing after the trial, the jury found the
existence of thirty-eight (38) aggravating factors.
[8] On December 23, 2004, the trial court held a sentencing hearing. It adopted
five of the aggravating factors the jury had found into its sentencing order.
These factors were: (1) the seriousness and number of Sharp’s prior crimes,
which included a Class C felony conviction for burglary, two Class A
misdemeanor convictions for residential entry, and six Class A misdemeanor
convictions for check deception; (2) Sharp was “in need of correctional or
rehabilitative treatment that [could] best be provided by commitment to a penal
facility;” (3) one of the victims had been seven years old at the time the crime
occurred; (4) Sharp had committed the offenses in the presence of or hearing of
people that were less than eighteen years old—specifically, A.L. and C.W.’s
younger sisters; and (5) Sharp’s crime had affected the public at large since he
had chosen to enter strangers’ homes at night and had targeted weaker
members of the community. (State’s Ex. 3 at 9). The trial court also found that
there were two mitigating factors: (1) Sharp had some family support that
could aid in his rehabilitation; and (2) incarceration might cause undue
hardship on Sharp’s dependents. However, the trial court noted that it assigned
the mitigating factors “minimal weight.” (State’s Ex. 3 at 9).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1410-PC-728 | November 30, 2015 Page 8 of 28
[9] Based on the aggravators and mitigators, the trial court sentenced Sharp to: (1)
fifty (50) years for his Class A felony burglary resulting in bodily injury
conviction; (2) twenty (20) years for his Class B felony rape conviction; (3) three
(3) years for his Class D felony criminal confinement conviction; (4) fifty (50)
years for his Class A felony burglary resulting in bodily injury conviction; (5)
fifty (50) years for his Class A felony criminal deviate conduct conviction; (6)
fifty (50) years for his Class A felony child molesting conviction; and (7) eight
(8) years for his Class C felony criminal confinement conviction. Except for
Sharp’s two criminal confinement sentences, the trial court ordered his
sentences to be served consecutively, for an aggregate executed sentence of two
hundred twenty (220) years.
[10] Thereafter, Sharp appealed his convictions. On appeal, he argued that the trial
court should not have admitted his DNA evidence at trial. Sharp, 835 N.E.2d
at 1084. He asserted that the DNA was inadmissible because the statute
governing Indiana’s DNA database was unconstitutional and because the trial
court did not have probable cause to order him to submit a DNA sample. Id.
This Court found that Sharp had already disputed the constitutionality of
requiring him to submit his DNA sample into the database when Sharp
challenged the nunc pro tunc order requiring him to do so. Id. at 1084-85. As a
result, we concluded that his argument was barred on the grounds of collateral
estoppel. Id. at 1085. Nevertheless, we addressed the merits of Sharp’s
argument and determined that his constitutional rights had not been violated
because the compulsory collection of DNA samples from convicted offenders
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1410-PC-728 | November 30, 2015 Page 9 of 28
for inclusion in Indiana’s DNA database fell within an exception to the Fourth
Amendment’s privacy protections. Id.
[11] Also on appeal, Sharp’s appellate counsel argued that “[d]efense counsel should
have objected to the DNA evidence being used because it was taken in an
untimely manner and not in accordance with [INDIANA CODE §] 10-13-6-5
through [INDIANA CODE §] 10-13-6-10 and the recent decision of Sharp v. State,
807 N.E.2d (Ind. App. 2004).” (Sharp’s Ex. A)1 (improper case citation in
original). In other words, his appellate counsel argued that, because the court
ordered Sharp to submit the sample at the same time it revoked Sharp’s
probation and then the probation revocation was later found to be improper,
Sharp’s trial counsel should have objected to the admission of the DNA
evidence at trial here. This Court interpreted this argument as an ineffective
assistance of trial counsel claim. Sharp, 835 N.E.2d at 1086. We held that,
because Sharp had already been convicted of a felony requiring him to provide
a DNA sample for the DNA database at the time of his probation revocation,
the order requiring him to do so was not related to the improper probation
revocation. Id. As a result, we held that his trial counsel was not ineffective for
failing to challenge the DNA sample. Id. at 1087.
1
This passage is from Sharp’s Appellant’s Brief. Although the exhibit volume does not reflect that the
Appellant’s Brief was included as part of Sharp’s Exhibit A, the transcript of the post-conviction hearing
indicates that it was admitted as part of Exhibit A.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1410-PC-728 | November 30, 2015 Page 10 of 28
[12] On May 13, 2013, Sharp filed a pro se amended petition for post-conviction
relief.2 In this petition, he alleged that his appellate counsel had been ineffective
for failing to raise certain issues on appeal and for failing to competently present
his ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim on appeal. On January 9, 2014,
the post-conviction court held a hearing, at which Sharp’s appellate and trial
attorneys testified. Then, on September 25, 2014, the post-conviction court
issued findings of fact and conclusions thereon denying Sharp post-conviction
relief. Sharp now appeals. We will provide additional facts as necessary.
Decision
[13] On appeal, Sharp argues that the post-conviction court erred in denying his
petition for post-conviction relief. He asserts that the court should have granted
him relief because his appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance.
Specifically, he claims that his appellate counsel: (1) failed to raise certain
issues on appeal, including that Sharp’s trial counsel was ineffective because he
did not: (a) request a change of judge; (b) request a severance of the charges
against him; (c) object to the State’s questions about the Indiana DNA database
and a witness’s reference to Sharp’s status as a convicted offender, both of
which he claims notified the jury of his status as a convicted offender; (d) object
to the admission of evidence regarding Sharp’s DNA sample at trial; (e) object
2
Sharp filed his original petition on November 2, 2012. In that petition, he alleged that his trial counsel had
been ineffective. The State filed a motion for summary disposition, arguing that Sharp had already litigated
the effectiveness of his trial counsel in his direct appeal. The post-conviction court granted the State’s motion
but granted Sharp leave to amend his petition.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1410-PC-728 | November 30, 2015 Page 11 of 28
to improper aggravating factors upon sentencing; and (2) failed to competently
argue on appeal that Sharp’s trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to
the admission of the evidence of his DNA sample.
[14] First, we must note that post-conviction proceedings afford petitioners a limited
opportunity to raise issues that were unavailable or unknown at trial and on
direct appeal. Pannell v. State, 36 N.E.3d 477, 485 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). Such
proceedings are not “super appeals” through which convicted persons can raise
issues that they failed to raise at trial or on direct appeal. Id. The proceedings
are civil in nature, and petitioners bear the burden of proving their grounds for
relief by a preponderance of the evidence. Id.
[15] When a petitioner appeals a denial of post-conviction relief, he appeals from a
negative judgment. Id. Consequently, we may not reverse the judgment of the
post-conviction court unless the petitioner demonstrates that the evidence “‘as a
whole, leads unerringly and unmistakably to a decision opposite that reached
by the post-conviction court.’” Id. (quoting Allen v. State, 791 N.E.2d 748, 752
(Ind. Ct. App. 2003), trans. denied). We accept the post-conviction court’s
findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous, but we do not give deference
to the court’s conclusions of law. Id.
[16] Further, we must note that, although Sharp is proceeding pro se and lacks legal
training, we hold pro se litigants to the same standards as trained counsel. Id.
[17] A defendant claiming a violation of the right to effective assistance of trial or
appellate counsel must establish the two components set forth in Strickland v.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1410-PC-728 | November 30, 2015 Page 12 of 28
Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Timberlake v. State, 753 N.E.2d 591, 603 (Ind.
2001); Reed v. State, 856 N.E.2d 1189, 1195 (Ind. 2006) (“The standard of
review for a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is the same as
for trial counsel . . . .”). First, the defendant must show that counsel’s
performance was deficient. Timberlake, 753 N.E.2d at 603. This requires a
showing that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of
reasonableness and that the errors were so serious that they resulted in a denial
of the right to counsel guaranteed to the defendant by the Sixth Amendment.
Id. Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced
his defense. 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 have been different. Id. A reasonable probability is a
probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. Id.
[18] Counsel is afforded considerable discretion in choosing strategy and tactics, and
we will accord those decisions deference. Id. A strong presumption arises that
counsel rendered adequate assistance and made all significant decisions in the
exercise of reasonable professional judgment. Id. The Strickland Court
recognized that even the finest, most experienced criminal defense attorneys
may not agree on the ideal strategy or the most effective way to represent a
client. Id. Isolated mistakes, poor strategy, inexperience, and instances of bad
judgment do not necessarily render representation ineffective. Id. The two
prongs of the Strickland test are separate and independent inquiries. Id. Thus,
“‘[i]f it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1410-PC-728 | November 30, 2015 Page 13 of 28
sufficient prejudice . . . that course should be followed.’” Id. (quoting Williams
v. State, 706 N.E.2d 149, 154 (Ind. 1999)).
[19] Our supreme court has recognized three categories of alleged appellate counsel
ineffectiveness: (1) denying access to an appeal, (2) failing to raise issues, and
(3) failing to present issues competently. Id. at 604 (citing Bieghler v. State, 690
N.E.2d 188, 193-95 (Ind. 1997), reh’g denied, cert. denied). When a claim of
ineffective assistance is directed at appellate counsel for failing to fully and
properly raise and support a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, a
defendant faces a compound burden on post-conviction. Id. The post-
conviction court must conclude that appellate counsel’s performance was
deficient and that, but for the deficiency of appellate counsel, trial counsel’s
performance would have been found deficient and prejudicial. Id.
[20] Here, Sharp challenges his appellate counsel’s performance under two of the
above categories. First, he argues that his appellate counsel was ineffective for
failing to raise several issues, and, second, he argues that his appellate counsel
was ineffective for failing to present an issue competently. We will address
each of these arguments in turn.
1. Failure to Raise Issues
[21] Sharp asserts that his appellate counsel was ineffective because he failed to raise
several issues that, according to Sharp, were better than the issues his counsel
did raise. Specifically, Sharp claims that his appellate counsel should have
argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to: (1) request a change
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1410-PC-728 | November 30, 2015 Page 14 of 28
of judge; (2) request severance of his charges; (3) object to the State’s questions
about the DNA database and a witness’s reference to Sharp as a convicted
offender; (4) object to the admission of evidence regarding Sharp’s DNA
sample at trial; and (5) object to improper aggravators during sentencing.
[22] In a claim that appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance regarding the
selection and presentation of issues, the defendant must overcome the strongest
presumption of adequate assistance, and judicial scrutiny is highly deferential.
Ben-Yisrayl, 738 N.E.2d 253, 260-61. In such cases, we apply a two-part test.
Timberlake, 753 N.E.2d at 605-06. First, we evaluate whether the unraised
issues are significant and obvious from the face of the record and, second,
whether the unraised issues are “‘clearly stronger’” than the raised issues. Id.
(quoting Bieghler, 690 N.E.2d at 198). Otherwise stated, to prevail on a claim of
ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, “‘a defendant must show from the
information available in the trial record or otherwise known to appellate
counsel that appellate counsel failed to present a significant and obvious issue
and that this failure cannot be explained by any reasonable strategy.’” Id.
(quoting Ben-Yisrayl, 738 N.E.2d at 261). Because the role and function of
appellate counsel on direct appeal is different from that of the defendant’s post-
conviction counsel, we do not measure the appellate counsel’s performance by
information unknown to the appellate counsel but later developed after the
appeal by the post-conviction counsel. Ben-Yisrayl, 738 N.E.2d at 261.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1410-PC-728 | November 30, 2015 Page 15 of 28
A. Change of Judge
[23] First, Sharp argues that his appellate counsel should have argued that his trial
counsel was ineffective for failing to move for a change of judge. During a pre-
trial conference, Sharp’s trial judge informed the parties:
[T]he victim whose first initial is J, I just recently found out that
my daughter is acquainted with her, and I will have [defense
counsel] explain. I told counsel back in my office, explain[ed] to
him the nature of the acquaintance. So, if there’s a need for that
to be transferred, I don’t see any reason that couldn’t just be
transferred to Circuit Court 3 to go with the other cases.
(Trial Tr. 21-22).3 The trial judge told Sharp’s trial counsel to talk with Sharp,
who was also at the pre-trial conference, about the issue and to tell her whether
Sharp wanted her to transfer the case. There is no record that Sharp’s counsel
thereafter told the judge that Sharp did not want to transfer the case. Now,
Sharp contends that the trial judge’s pre-trial admission demonstrated that the
judge was biased, and he correspondingly argues that his appellate counsel
should have asserted that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a
motion for a change of judge.
3
In order to distinguish between Sharp’s trial transcript and post-conviction hearing transcript, we will refer
to the trial transcript as “Trial Tr.” and the post-conviction hearing transcript as “P-C Tr.” Similarly, we will
refer to the Appendix from Sharp’s direct appeal as “Appellate App.” and the Appendix from his post-
conviction hearing as “App.”
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1410-PC-728 | November 30, 2015 Page 16 of 28
[24] During his post-conviction hearing, Sharp asked his trial counsel whether he
had given any consideration to asking the trial judge to recuse herself, and his
trial counsel responded:
I don’t recall specifically what my thought process was then but
with using the term “acquaintance[,]” it would have occurred to
me that, that’s not unusual that there would be some other
knowledge of the next Judge that might know an alleged victim.
It’s just the way it works. So someone being an acquaintance
and not even her but her daughter. I’m sort of guessing that it
didn’t seem to me at the time that, that would be significant or
that would be an issue.
(P-C Tr. 31).
[25] As we stated above, in a claim such as Sharp’s, a petitioner must prove that if it
were not for his appellate counsel’s performance, his trial counsel’s
performance would have been found deficient and prejudicial. Timberlake, 753
N.E.2d at 604. We conclude that Sharp’s appellate counsel was not ineffective
because, regardless of his performance, Sharp’s trial counsel’s performance
would not have been found deficient and prejudicial on the grounds that he
failed to request a change of judge.
[26] Specifically, it is apparent that his trial counsel’s actions were a matter of trial
strategy. When representing a defendant, “[c]ounsel is given ‘significant
deference in choosing a strategy which, at the time and under the
circumstances, he or she deems best.’” Benefield v. State, 945 N.E.2d 791, 799
(Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (quoting Potter v. State, 684 N.E.2d 1127, 1133 (Ind.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1410-PC-728 | November 30, 2015 Page 17 of 28
1997)). “‘A reviewing court will not second-guess the propriety of trial
counsel’s tactics.’” Id. (quoting Davidson v. State, 763 N.E.2d 441, 446 (Ind.
2002), reh’g denied, cert. denied). “‘[T]rial strategy is not subject to attack through
an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, unless the strategy is so deficient or
unreasonable as to fall outside of the objective standard of reasonableness.’” Id.
(quoting Autrey v. State, 700 N.E.2d 1140, 1141 (Ind. 1998)). “‘This is so even
when such choices may be subject to criticism or the choice ultimately prove[s]
detrimental to the defendant.’” Id. (quoting Autrey, 700 N.E.2d at 1141).
[27] Based on Sharp’s trial counsel’s testimony at the post-conviction hearing, it is
clear that his trial counsel believed that it was equally likely a different judge
might know one of the victims and also that Sharp’s trial judge’s daughter’s
acquaintance with the victim was so attenuated that it would not bias her
determination. Therefore, his trial counsel’s decision was a matter of trial
strategy and did not constitute deficient performance. Further, we note that
Sharp has not pointed to any specific incidences indicating that the trial judge
might have been actually biased. He merely raises the hypothetical argument
that she could have been biased against him. In light of these factors, we
conclude that Sharp’s appellate attorney was not ineffective for failing to raise a
claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to move for a change of
judge. Thus, the post-conviction court did not err in denying post-conviction
relief on that claim.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1410-PC-728 | November 30, 2015 Page 18 of 28
B. Severance of the Charges
[28] Next, Sharp argues that his appellate counsel was ineffective because he did not
argue that Sharp’s trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to
sever Sharp’s charges. Sharp notes that the charges against him involved two
separate girls and two separate incidents that were not closely related in time.
As a result, he claims that he had a right to severance and that the results of his
trial might have been different if he had been granted a severance.
[29] Again, we conclude that Sharp’s trial counsel’s performance would not have
been found deficient, regardless of his appellate counsel’s performance. At the
post-conviction hearing, Sharp’s trial counsel said that he had considered filing
a motion to sever the charges but concluded that, as a matter of strategy, he
should not because both of the victims had identified people other than Sharp as
the perpetrators of the crimes. Specifically, Sharp’s trial counsel testified:
I thought it may actually favor [Sharp] because you have two (2)
people saying, at least initially, “no it wasn’t him, I believe it was
someone else or someone that [does not] fit his description[.”]
Isolated[,] in other words, if those trials were separate, that’s just
one factor where you have two (2) individuals, I think you have a
strong case to point out to the jury. You know is this just a
coincidence. How does this happen twice but yet they want you
to think that this guy is guilty[?] So[,] I thought it might actually
[] favor him to have those trials together.
(P-C Tr. 30-31).
[30] Sharp claims that this trial strategy was unreasonable because the DNA
evidence established his identity, so the victims’ identifications were “moot.”
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1410-PC-728 | November 30, 2015 Page 19 of 28
(Sharp’s Br. 19). However, because the DNA evidence was the only evidence
linking Sharp to the offenses, we conclude that it was logical for Sharp’s trial
counsel to attempt to call that identification into question through the evidence
of the victims’ contrary identifications. His decision was a reasonable strategic
one, and we will not find his performance deficient. See Perryman v. State, 13
N.E.3d 923, 931 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (“‘reasonable strategy is not subject to
judicial second guesses.’”) (quoting Burr v. State, 492 N.E.2d 306, 309 (Ind.
1986)), trans. denied. Accordingly, we conclude that Sharp did not meet his
burden of proving that his appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance by
failing to move for a severance of the charges.
C. Failure to Object
[31] Next, Sharp argues that his appellate counsel should have argued that his trial
counsel was ineffective for failing to object to: (1) the State’s reference to the
Indiana DNA database and a witness’s reference to Sharp’s status as a
convicted offender; (2) the State’s admission of evidence of his DNA sample at
trial; and (3) the trial court’s consideration of certain aggravating factors during
sentencing. In order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel
due to a failure to object, a defendant must show a reasonable probability that
the objection would have been sustained if it were made. Perryman v. State, 13
N.E.3d 923, 931 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (quoting Burr v. State, 492 N.E.2d 306,
309 (Ind. 1986)), trans. denied.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1410-PC-728 | November 30, 2015 Page 20 of 28
i. Convicted Offender
[32] At trial, the State questioned Nicole Ihnat (“Ihnat”), a forensic DNA analyst
with the Indiana State Police Laboratory, about the DNA match between the
DNA samples taken from the victims and Sharp’s DNA sample stored in
Indiana’s DNA database, CODIS. The State asked Ihnat, “Who matched the
profile that you entered into the CODIS data bank?” and she responded, “It
was found to be consistent with a convicted offender sampled [sic] from Brent
Sharp.” (Trial Tr. 622). During its closing argument, the State then referred to
CODIS again, stating “[i]t’s not until September of ’03 when we got the CODIS
hit.” (Trial Tr. 684). The State also said “it was Brent Sharp whose
information DNA profile was in CODIS[.]” (Trial Tr. 685). Sharp now asserts
that these references to his convicted offender status and CODIS, which is a
database for the DNA of convicted offenders, prejudiced his trial by informing
the jury that he had a criminal history. Accordingly, he contends that his
appellate counsel should have argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for
failing to object to those references.
[33] At Sharp’s post-conviction hearing, his trial counsel testified that he did not
remember the State’s references to CODIS or to Sharp’s status as a convicted
offender, but he said that if he did not object, “something like that is often done
for strategic reasons;” specifically, if a person “did [not] want to bring specific
attention to it in that context.” (P-C Tr. 35). In that case, his action would
have been a legitimate strategic decision, and Sharp’s appellate counsel would
not be ineffective for failing to raise the issue on appeal. See Connor v. State, 711
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1410-PC-728 | November 30, 2015 Page 21 of 28
N.E.2d 1238, 1250 (Ind. 1999) (holding that a defense counsel’s avoidance of
drawing attention to testimony or argument unfavorable to the defendant is a
legitimate strategy), reh’g denied, cert. denied.
[34] Regardless, Sharp’s trial counsel’s failure to object to the challenged testimony
was not prejudicial. As we stated above, 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 have been
different. Timberlake, 753 N.E.2d at 603. A reasonable probability is a
probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. Id. Here, there
was DNA evidence directly linking Sharp to his offenses. As Ihnat stated, in
the absence of an identical twin, Sharp was “the source of the DNA to a
reasonable degree of scientific certainty.” (Trial Tr. 626). In addition, Ihnat
only mentioned that Sharp was a convicted offender on one occasion, and it
was not in response to the State’s question. Also, Sharp’s trial counsel later
attempted to cure the admission by asking Ihnat: “Now the CODIS database
that you mentioned, those are not just sex offenders, right? That’s anybody
who has their profile in the database?” and she responded, “That is correct.”
(Trial Tr. 640). In light of all of these factors, it is unlikely that Ihnat’s reference
to Sharp’s convicted offender status or the CODIS database prejudiced Sharp
such that there was a reasonable probability the result of the proceeding would
have been different. Thus, Sharp’s appellate counsel was not ineffective for
failing to argue that trial counsel should have objected to the statements, and
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1410-PC-728 | November 30, 2015 Page 22 of 28
the post-conviction court did not err in finding that Sharp did not meet his
burden of proving that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.
ii. DNA Sample
[35] Next, Sharp asserts that his appellate counsel was ineffective because he did not
argue on appeal that his trial counsel should have objected to “the DNA sample
taken for inclusion in CODIS.” (Sharp’s Br. 21). Sharp claims that the State
did not present any evidence at trial that his sample was taken in a “medically
approved manner” or that there was a chain of custody of the sample prior to its
inclusion in the database. (Sharp’s Br. 21).
[36] Both of these arguments again challenge the propriety of the inclusion of
Sharp’s DNA in the CODIS database, although on different grounds than he
raised in his direct appeal. First, we must note that Sharp’s trial counsel did
object to the “method or manner of obtaining the substances or the samples
from Brent Sharp” at trial and was not successful. (Trial Tr. 624).
Theoretically, the “method or manner” of obtaining the samples relates to both
of Sharp’s arguments here and, therefore, was addressed by his trial counsel,
contrary to his contentions. (Trial Tr. 624).
[37] In addition, as we stated in his direct appeal, Sharp had already litigated the
propriety of the DNA sample at the time of his trial, so he was precluded from
collaterally attacking the manner that the evidence was submitted into CODIS.
See Sharp, 835 N.E.2d at 1085 (finding that Sharp was collaterally estopped
from re-litigating the submission of his DNA into CODIS). Thus, Sharp’s trial
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1410-PC-728 | November 30, 2015 Page 23 of 28
counsel would not have been successful in objecting to the evidence of the
DNA sample on either of the grounds that Sharp raises here and, accordingly,
his appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise the issue on appeal.
See Timberlake, 753 N.E.2d at 603 (stating that a petitioner must demonstrate
that counsel’s performance was deficient, which requires a showing that
“counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and
that the errors were so serious that they resulted in a denial of the right to
counsel guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment”).
iii. Aggravating Factors
[38] Finally, Sharp argues that his appellate counsel was ineffective because he did
not assert that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the
aggravating factors the trial court adopted during sentencing. Specifically,
Sharp claims that his trial counsel should have objected to the trial court’s
consideration of: (1) his criminal history; (2) his “need for correctional or
rehabilitative treatment that can best be provided by commitment to a penal
facility;” (3) the victims’ ages; (4) the fact that the crime was committed in the
presence of or hearing of a person who was less than eighteen years old; and (5)
the nature and circumstances of Sharp’s offenses. (Appellate App. 446).
[39] We need not address Sharp’s arguments individually because we conclude that
even if the trial court’s aggravators were improper, Sharp has not shown that he
was prejudiced by his counsel’s failure to object. See Timberlake, 753 N.E.2d at
603 (stating that a petitioner must show that his counsel’s performance
prejudiced his defense in order to succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1410-PC-728 | November 30, 2015 Page 24 of 28
claim). Sentencing determinations are within the trial court’s discretion.
McCann v. State, 749 N.E.2d 1116, 1119 (Ind. 2001). At the time of Sharp’s
offense, if a trial court relied on aggravating or mitigating circumstances to
enhance or reduce the presumptive sentence, it had to: (1) identify all
significant mitigating and aggravating circumstances; (2) state the specific
reason why each circumstance was determined to be mitigating or aggravating;
and (3) articulate the trial court’s evaluation and balancing of the identified
circumstances. Id. “‘[A] single aggravating circumstance [was] enough to
justify an enhancement or the imposition of consecutive sentences,’” and this
Court would only have remanded for resentencing if we could not say “with
confidence that the trial court would have imposed the same sentence if it
considered the proper aggravating and mitigating circumstances.” McCann, 749
N.E.2d at 1121. When a trial court improperly applied an aggravator but other
aggravating circumstances existed, our supreme court would uphold a sentence
enhancement. Garland v. State, 855 N.E.2d 703, 707 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006)
(citing Smith v. State, 770 N.E.2d 818, 822 (Ind. 2002)), trans. denied.
[40] Even if we found that the five aggravating factors the trial court adopted here
were improper, the jury found that there were thirty-eight total aggravating
factors. As Sharp has not challenged the remaining thirty-three aggravators the
jury found, we conclude that he was not prejudiced by his trial counsel’s failure
to object to any of the statutory aggravators that the trial court adopted.
Accordingly, Sharp did not show that his appellate counsel was ineffective for
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1410-PC-728 | November 30, 2015 Page 25 of 28
failing to raise trial counsel’s failure to object to the aggravators as an issue on
appeal.
2. Competent Presentation of Issues
[41] Finally, Sharp argues that his appellate counsel was ineffective because he
failed to present issues competently. He notes that his appellate counsel’s
ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim lacked merit because, as we held on
appeal, it was collaterally estopped by the prior litigation. Sharp claims that he
was prejudiced by this meritless claim because it precluded him from raising
better ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims in his petition for post-
conviction relief. He also contends that the post-conviction court erred by
failing to address this argument in its findings of fact and conclusions thereon.
[42] Under the third category of appellate ineffectiveness, a petitioner may allege
that, although his counsel raised particular issues, counsel’s presentation of
them was inadequate in some way. Bieghler, 690 N.E.2d at 195. This category
includes actions such as filing an inadequate appellate brief. Id. Sometimes,
“appellate counsel’s work is so deficient that an issue, though technically raised,
is deemed waived for failure to present cogent argument and/or cite to facts in
the record supporting the claim.” Id. In other cases, however, the reviewing
court is still able to reach the issue on its merits, even though counsel’s
presentation of it was less than stellar. Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1410-PC-728 | November 30, 2015 Page 26 of 28
[43] First, we disagree with Sharp’s contention that the post-conviction court failed
to rule on this argument. In its order, the post-conviction court concluded:
201. The Court acknowledges that the brief of appellate counsel
was weak. He did not develop his arguments well and he “fell
into” making an ineffective assistance of counsel claim[] that
should have been preserved for [post-conviction] [r]elief.
202. That being said, this Court finds that Petitioner has failed to
meet his burden with regard to ineffective assistance of appellate
counsel.
203. The Court further finds and concludes that trial counsel was
not ineffective pursuant to Strickland.
204. The above-referenced, unraised issues were not significant
and obvious from the face of the record, and these issues are not
clearly stronger than the raised issues. Therefore, [a]ppellate
[c]ounsel was not ineffective.
Additionally, the Petitioner has failed to prove prejudice. . . .
(App. 63-64). The post-conviction court clearly addressed Sharp’s argument in
this excerpt.
[44] Second, we agree with the substance of the post-conviction court’s conclusions.
Even if Sharp’s appellate counsel’s brief was weak, Sharp has not demonstrated
that he was prejudiced as a result. We have not found that any of the
ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims Sharp has raised had more merit
than the claims Sharp’s appellate counsel raised on appeal. Accordingly, we
conclude that the results of Sharp’s appeal would not have been different if his
appellate counsel had presented his issues differently, and, therefore, Sharp
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1410-PC-728 | November 30, 2015 Page 27 of 28
failed to prove prejudice sufficient to prevail on an ineffective assistance of
counsel claim.
Affirmed.
Crone, J., and Brown, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1410-PC-728 | November 30, 2015 Page 28 of 28