Mark Bonds v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2017 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Jul 19 2017, 6:11 am
court except for the purpose of establishing
CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Beverly Bourn Marker Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Camby, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Michael Gene Worden
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Mark Bonds, July 19, 2017
Appellant-Petitioner, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A02-1608-PC-1943
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Sheila A. Carlisle,
Appellee-Respondent Judge
The Honorable Stanley E. Kroh,
Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
49G03-1009-PC-74984
Crone, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1608-PC-1943 | July 19, 2017 Page 1 of 15
Case Summary
[1] Mark Bonds appeals the denial of his petition for postconviction relief (“PCR”).
He raises several freestanding claims of error, maintains that he was denied his
constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel, and challenges the
postconviction court’s denial of his motion for new DNA testing. Finding that
he waived his freestanding claims of error and that he failed to establish
ineffective assistance of counsel or error in the denial of his motion for new
DNA testing, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] The relevant facts as summarized in an unpublished memorandum decision in
Bonds’s direct appeal read in pertinent part as follows:
Bonds began dating D.C.’s mother when D.C. was eleven years
old. When D.C. was twelve years old, she told her mother that
Bonds had molested her, and the couple broke up. D.C. later
recanted, and the couple resumed dating when D.C. was thirteen
years old.
In 2010, D.C. was thirteen, and Bonds was twenty-four years
old. D.C.’s family had a two-bedroom, two-story apartment.
D.C. and her brother each had a bedroom upstairs, and their
mother slept downstairs. On September 10, D.C. slept with her
younger brother, D.V., because her bed was covered with
clothes, and Bonds stayed overnight with their mother
downstairs. Early the next morning, Bonds went upstairs and,
using his cell phone to illuminate the room, looked in on the
children, who were still sleeping. The light from the cell phone
woke D.C. Bonds uncovered her, pulled down her shorts and
underwear, and placed his mouth on her vagina. Bonds then had
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1608-PC-1943 | July 19, 2017 Page 2 of 15
intercourse with D.C. D.C. cried, told Bonds “no” and that “the
Devil is a liar,” but he did not stop. At some point, D.V. also
woke. When Bonds left the room, D.C. put her underwear and
shorts back on.
D.C.’s mother saw Bonds come down the stairs at approximately
5:30 that morning. She noticed that he looked sweaty, and
Bonds told her he had been sick in the bathroom upstairs. The
home also contained a bathroom downstairs. The mother went
to retrieve a towel and spoke to D.V., who told her what Bonds
had done to D.C.
After Bonds left the house, the mother asked D.C. what had
happened, and D.C. related what Bonds had done that morning
and that Bonds had molested her the prior week, too. The
mother then telephoned the police. D.C. was given a rape kit
examination. The vaginal swab revealed spermatozoa matching
Bonds’ DNA profile, but the test also showed another DNA
contributor besides D.C. and Bonds. Additionally, amylase, a
substance in saliva, was found in the crotch of D.C.’s underwear.
The amylase also matched Bonds’ DNA profile. Additional tests
revealed that substantial amounts of D.C.’s DNA were found on
Bonds’ hands.
On September 30, the State charged Bonds with three counts of
child molesting, as Class A felonies; six counts of child
molesting, as Class C felonies; two counts of criminal
confinement, as Class C felonies; one count of strangulation, as a
Class D felony; and one count of battery, as a Class D felony.
On January 5, 2011, the court granted the State’s motion to
amend the information to add five counts of child molesting, as
Class A felonies, and two counts of child molesting as Class C
felonies, for a total of twenty counts. At the conclusion of the
trial, the trial court granted Bonds’ motion for judgment on the
evidence on ten counts, the jury found Bonds guilty of four
counts, and the jury found Bonds not guilty on the remaining six
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1608-PC-1943 | July 19, 2017 Page 3 of 15
counts. However, the trial court subsequently granted Bonds’
motion for a mistrial due to juror misconduct.
On October 29 through 31, 2012, a second jury trial was held on
the six counts on which the first jury had found Bonds guilty:
four counts of child molesting, as Class A felonies, and two
counts of child molesting, as Class C felonies. The jury found
Bonds guilty of two counts of Class A felony child molesting and
one count of Class C felony child molesting. At sentencing, the
trial court did not enter judgment of conviction on the Class C
felony count on double jeopardy grounds. The court found the
aggravators and mitigators to balance and sentenced Bonds to
concurrent thirty-year terms with five years suspended, three
years of the suspended portion to be served on sex offender
probation, and ordered Bonds not to have any contact with the
victim or her family.
Bonds v. State, No. 49A02-1212-CR-974, 2013 WL 2407101, at *1-2 (Ind. Ct.
App. June 4, 2013) (citations omitted), trans. denied.
[3] Bonds filed a direct appeal, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to
support his convictions. Finding the evidence sufficient, another panel of this
Court affirmed his convictions.
[4] In September 2013, Bonds filed a petition for postconviction relief. He
requested and received pauper counsel, but counsel subsequently withdrew its
representation. In 2015, acting pro se, he filed three amendments to his PCR
petition, a motion for summary judgment, a motion to compel production of
DNA samples for independent testing, and a request to subpoena certain
witnesses. The postconviction court denied his motion for production of DNA,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1608-PC-1943 | July 19, 2017 Page 4 of 15
his motion for summary judgment, and his request for subpoenas, finding that
the witnesses were not proper witnesses and that Bonds had failed to file an
affidavit in support of his subpoena request. At the evidentiary hearing, Bonds
offered exhibits, many of which the court declined to admit, but did not present
any witness testimony. He indicated a desire to submit more documentation to
the court, and the court allowed him an additional three months to file
affidavits. In July 2016, the postconviction court issued an order with findings
of fact and conclusions of law denying Bonds’s PCR petition. Bonds filed a
motion to reconsider, which was also denied.
[5] Bonds now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.
Discussion and Decision
[6] Bonds contends that the postconviction court erred in denying his PCR
petition. The petitioner in a postconviction proceeding “bears the burden of
establishing grounds for relief by a preponderance of the evidence.” Ind. Post-
Conviction Rule 1(5); Passwater v. State, 989 N.E.2d 766, 770 (Ind. 2013).
When issuing its decision to grant or deny relief, the postconviction court must
make findings of fact and conclusions of law. Ind. Post-Conviction Rule 1(6).
A petitioner who appeals the denial of his postconviction petition faces a
rigorous standard of review. Massey v. State, 955 N.E.2d 247, 253 (Ind. 2011).
In conducting our review, we neither reweigh evidence nor judge witness
credibility; rather, we consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences
most favorable to the judgment. McKnight v. State, 1 N.E.3d 193, 199 (Ind. Ct.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1608-PC-1943 | July 19, 2017 Page 5 of 15
Ohio App. 2013), trans. denied (2014). “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.”
Passwater, 989 N.E.2d at 770 (citation and quotation marks omitted). In other
words, if a postconviction petitioner was denied relief in the proceedings below,
he must show that the evidence as a whole leads unerringly and unmistakably
to a conclusion opposite the one reached by the postconviction court. Massey,
955 N.E.2d at 253.
[7] Postconviction relief does not offer the petitioner a super appeal; rather,
subsequent collateral challenges must be based on grounds enumerated in the
postconviction rules. McKnight, 1 N.E.3d at 199. These rules limit the scope of
relief to issues unknown or unavailable to the petitioner on direct appeal. Id.
Where, as here, the judge who presided over the defendant’s trial is also the
judge who presided over his postconviction proceedings, the postconviction
court’s findings and judgment should be entitled to “greater than usual
deference.” Hinesley v. State, 999 N.E.2d 975, 982 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (citation
omitted), trans. denied (2014).
[8] At the outset, we note that Bonds chose to proceed pro se, both in the PCR
proceedings below and in filing his initial appellant’s brief in this appeal. 1 It is
well settled that pro se litigants are held to the same legal standards as licensed
1
Bonds retained representation after he filed his initial appellant’s brief, and his reply brief was written and
submitted by counsel.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1608-PC-1943 | July 19, 2017 Page 6 of 15
attorneys. Lowrance v. State, 64 N.E.3d 935, 938 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans.
denied (2017). This means that they must follow our established rules of
procedure and accept the consequences when they fail to do so. Id. It is not the
court’s role to become an “advocate for a party, or address arguments that are
inappropriate or too poorly developed or expressed to be understood.” Id.
Section 1 – Bonds’s freestanding claims of error are
unavailable for consideration in postconviction proceedings.
[9] Bonds raises freestanding claims of (1) trial court error in the admission of
evidence; and (2) prosecutorial misconduct for “introduc[ing] false documents
and failing to disclose a full chain of custody report and intentionally using
purjured [sic] testimony of State witnesses; also purjurying [sic] closing
argument about evidence results.” Appellant’s Br. at 15. Because these claims
were not demonstrably unavailable at the time of Bonds’s direct appeal, they
are not available as freestanding claims in a petition for postconviction relief.
Saylor v. State, 55 N.E.3d 354, 359 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied. This is
true even where the postconviction petitioner characterizes the freestanding
claims as fundamental error. See Stephenson v. State, 864 N.E.2d 1022, 1029
(Ind. 2007) (where defendant did not object at trial and issue was not raised on
direct appeal, he is foreclosed from raising issue in postconviction proceeding as
freestanding claim of error, whether “fundamental” or otherwise). See also
Lindsey v. State, 888 N.E.2d 319, 325 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (postconviction
petitioner may raise claim for first time in PCR petition only if claim is for
ineffective assistance of counsel or an issue demonstrably unavailable at trial or
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1608-PC-1943 | July 19, 2017 Page 7 of 15
on direct appeal), trans. denied. Bonds is foreclosed from raising his freestanding
claims, even when couched in terms of fundamental error.
Section 2 – Bonds was not denied his constitutional right to
effective assistance of trial counsel.
[10] Bonds also maintains that he was denied his constitutional right to effective
assistance of trial counsel (“Counsel”). To prevail on an ineffective assistance
claim, Bonds must satisfy two components: he must demonstrate both deficient
performance and prejudice resulting from it. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.
668, 687 (1984). Deficient performance is “representation [that] fell below an
objective standard of reasonableness, [where] counsel made errors so serious
that counsel was not functioning as ‘counsel’ guaranteed by the Sixth
Amendment.” Passwater, 989 N.E.2d at 770. We assess counsel’s performance
based on facts that are known at the time and not through hindsight.
Shanabarger v. State, 846 N.E.2d 702, 709 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied.
Evidence of isolated poor strategy, inexperience, or bad tactics will not support
an ineffective assistance claim; instead, we evaluate counsel’s performance as a
whole. Flanders v. State, 955 N.E.2d 732, 739 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied
(2012). “[C]ounsel’s performance is presumed effective, and a defendant must
offer strong and convincing evidence to overcome this presumption.” Ritchie v.
State, 875 N.E.2d 706, 714 (Ind. 2007). “Strickland does not guarantee perfect
representation, only a reasonably competent attorney.” Hinesley, 999 N.E.2d at
983.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1608-PC-1943 | July 19, 2017 Page 8 of 15
[11] Bonds asserts that Counsel was ineffective in failing to conduct a reasonable
investigation, in not calling certain witnesses during trial, and in not objecting
during closing argument. When deciding a claim of ineffective assistance of
counsel for failure to investigate, we apply a great deal of deference to counsel’s
judgments. Boesch v. State, 778 N.E.2d 1276, 1283 (Ind. 2002).
[S]trategic choices made after thorough investigation of law and
facts relevant to plausible options are virtually unchallengeable;
and strategic choices made after less than complete investigation
are reasonable precisely to the extent that reasonable professional
judgments support the limitation on investigation. In other
words, counsel has a duty to make reasonable investigations or to
make a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations
unnecessary.
Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690-91.
[12] Because success on the prejudice prong of an ineffective assistance claim
requires a showing of a reasonable probability of a different result, establishing
failure to investigate as a ground for ineffectiveness “requires going beyond the
trial record to show what investigation, if undertaken, would have produced.”
McKnight, 1 N.E.3d at 201 (citing Woods v. State, 701 N.E.2d 1208, 1214 (Ind.
1998), cert. denied (1999)).
[13] Here, Bonds neither called Counsel as a witness to testify at the PCR hearing
nor introduced any evidence from Counsel by affidavit or otherwise. Thus, we
have no indication as to the extent of Counsel’s actual investigation. When a
PCR petitioner does not call Counsel to testify as a witness, the postconviction
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1608-PC-1943 | July 19, 2017 Page 9 of 15
court may infer that Counsel would not have corroborated the petitioner’s
allegations. Oberst v. State, 935 N.E.2d 1250, 1254 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans.
denied (2011). Similarly, Bonds neither testified nor presented evidence outside
the trial record to show what evidence a more thorough investigation by
Counsel would have produced. As such, he has failed to establish that Counsel
performed deficiently concerning the extent of his investigation.
[14] As for Bonds’s allegation of Counsel’s deficient performance based on not
calling certain witnesses to testify, the decision concerning “which witnesses to
call is the epitome of a strategic decision.” Wrinkles v. State, 749 N.E.2d 1179,
1200 (Ind. 2001) (quoting Wisehart v. State, 693 N.E.2d 23, 48 n.26 (Ind. 1998)).
See also Brown v. State, 691 N.E.2d 438, 447 (Ind. 1998) (“A decision regarding
what witnesses to call is a matter of trial strategy which an appellate court will
not second-guess”). Again, the fact that Counsel did not testify at the PCR
hearing has resulted in a total absence of evidence as to his thought process in
selecting which witnesses to call during Bonds’s trial. Bonds has failed to
establish that Counsel performed deficiently in his selection of witnesses.
[15] Bonds has likewise failed to establish ineffective assistance in Counsel’s failure
to object to certain statements made by the prosecutor during closing argument.
In addressing this argument, we first observe that Bonds has incorrectly
characterized the prosecutor’s statements as perjured. See Appellant’s Br. at 15
(“purjurying [sic] closing argument”). Since the prosecutor was not under oath,
his statements cannot amount to perjury. See Ind. Code § 35-44.1-2-1(a)(1)
(requiring proof of a knowingly “false, material statement under oath or
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1608-PC-1943 | July 19, 2017 Page 10 of 15
affirmation” to establish perjury). To establish ineffective assistance of counsel
due to the failure to object, the petitioner must prove that an objection would
have been sustained if made and that he was prejudiced by Counsel’s failure to
do so. Kubsch v. State, 934 N.E.2d 1138, 1150 (Ind. 2010). Here, Bonds
challenges Counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s closing argument
comment that DNA testing indicated the presence of amylase, a substance
found in saliva, in the crotch of the victim’s underwear and that the testing
showed amylase consistent with Bonds’s DNA profile. However, Bonds did
not offer the record from his original trial into evidence at his PCR hearing and,
although it appears that the postconviction court took judicial notice of it sua
sponte, the record is not included in the materials submitted in this appeal.2
“The appellant bears the burden to present a record that is complete with
respect to the issues raised on appeal, and this burden includes a duty to ensure
that th[is] court has a transcript of the appropriate trial proceedings.” Perez-
Grahovac v. State, 894 N.E.2d 578, 585 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), trans. denied (2009).
Bonds did not meet his burden of ensuring that we received the transcript from
his trial. With no transcript and no witness testimony, we have no means of
reviewing whether an objection, if made, would have been sustained. See
Mitchell v. State, 946 N.E.2d 640, 644-45 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (petitioner who
2
In Mitchell v. State, we emphasized the importance of the petitioner offering his original trial record into
evidence during the PCR hearing, and concluded that where the petitioner fails to offer it into evidence, the
2010 amendment to Indiana Evidence Rule 201(b)(5) allows the postconviction court, on petitioner’s motion
or sua sponte, to judicially notice the transcript of evidence from the petitioner’s underlying criminal
proceedings to evaluate ineffective assistance claims. 946 N.E.2d 640, 644-45 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans.
denied.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1608-PC-1943 | July 19, 2017 Page 11 of 15
did not offer his trial record into evidence and neither asked the postconviction
court to take judicial notice of trial record nor called any witnesses at his PCR
hearing failed to meet his burden of proof on his ineffective assistance claims),
trans. denied.
[16] Bonds bore the burden of proving his ineffective assistance claims. Yet he did
not call Counsel or any other witnesses to testify during the PCR hearing. He
himself did not testify, and he did not introduce his trial record or submit it in
this appeal. His arguments of ineffective assistance of Counsel are unsupported
by evidence. Bonds has failed to overcome the presumption that Counsel
performed effectively.
Section 3 – The trial court did not clearly err in denying
Bonds’s petition for additional DNA testing.
[17] Finally, Bonds contends that the trial court clearly erred in denying his petition
for additional DNA testing. Indiana Post-Conviction Rule 1(d) states,
A petition filed by a person who has been convicted or sentenced
for a crime by a court of this state that seeks to require forensic
DNA testing or analysis of any evidence, whether denominated
as a petition filed pursuant to Ind. Code § 35-38-7-5 or not, is
considered a Petition for Post-Conviction Relief.
Because a petitioner’s request for DNA testing is considered a petition for
postconviction relief, he is subject to the same burden of proof as other PCR
petitioners. See Ind. Post-Conviction Rule 1(5) (petitioner must establish
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1608-PC-1943 | July 19, 2017 Page 12 of 15
grounds for relief by a preponderance of evidence). Likewise, he is subject to
the same standard of appellate review. See Massey, 955 N.E.2d at 253.
[18] Indiana Code Section 35-38-7-5 states in pertinent part that “[a] person who
was convicted of and sentenced for an offense may file a written petition with
the court that sentenced the petitioner for the offense to require the forensic
DNA testing and analysis of any evidence” in the court’s or State’s possession
or in the Indiana DNA database, that is related to the petitioner’s
prosecution/investigation resulting in his conviction, and that may contain
biological evidence. Indiana Code Section 35-38-7-8 reads as follows with
respect to a PCR petitioner’s burden of proof when requesting DNA testing:
After complying with section 7 of this chapter, the court shall
determine whether the petitioner has presented prima facie proof
of the following:
(1) That the evidence sought to be tested is material to identifying
the petitioner as:
(A) the perpetrator of; or
(B) an accomplice to;
the offense that resulted in the petitioner’s conviction.
(2) That a sample of the evidence that the petitioner seeks to
subject to DNA testing and analysis is in the possession or
control of either:
(A) the state or a court; or
(B) another person, and, if this clause applies, that a sufficient
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1608-PC-1943 | July 19, 2017 Page 13 of 15
chain of custody for the evidence exists to suggest that the
evidence has not been substituted, tampered with, replaced,
contaminated, or degraded in any material aspect.
(3) The evidence sought to be tested:
(A) was not previously tested; or
(B) was tested, but the requested DNA testing and analysis will:
(i) provide results that are reasonably more discriminating and
probative of the identity of the perpetrator or accomplice; or
(ii) have a reasonable probability of contradicting prior test
results.
(4) A reasonable probability exists that the petitioner would not
have:
(A) been:
(i) prosecuted for; or
(ii) convicted of;
the offense; or
(B) received as severe a sentence for the offense;
if exculpatory results had been obtained through the requested
DNA testing and analysis.
[19] As best we can discern, Bonds seeks additional DNA testing to settle conflicting
testimony concerning the previous DNA test results. See Appellant’s Br. at 26-
27 (“DNA re-testing … will contradict [the State’s DNA expert’s] testimony
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1608-PC-1943 | July 19, 2017 Page 14 of 15
about the results and show that [the witness] purjured [sic] her testimony … to
help [the] state to get a conviction.”). In other words, he seeks a tiebreaking
result as between his witness and the State’s witness. However, he failed to
introduce probative evidence to support a finding that additional testing will
“provide results that are reasonably more discriminating and probative of the
identity of the perpetrator” or “have a reasonable probability of contradicting
prior test results.” Ind. Code § 35-38-7-8(3)(B)(i), -(ii). He also failed to present
evidence to show a reasonable probability that he would not have been
convicted had the “exculpatory results had been obtained through the requested
DNA testing and analysis.” Ind. Code § 35-38-7-8(4)(A)(ii).
[20] In short, Bonds’s arguments lack evidentiary support and amount to requests to
reweigh evidence and reassess witness credibility, which we may not and will
not do. McKnight, 1 N.E.3d at 199. The postconviction court did not clearly
err in denying his request for additional DNA testing. Accordingly, we affirm.
[21] Affirmed.
Baker, J., and Barnes, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1608-PC-1943 | July 19, 2017 Page 15 of 15