Dennis Meadows v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2017 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Dec 06 2017, 9:36 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any
CLERK
court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Ross G. Thomas Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
George P. Sherman
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Dennis Meadows, December 6, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
61A01-1608-PC-1762
v. Appeal from the Parke Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Sam A. Swaim,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
61C01-1510-PC-350
Brown, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 61A01-1608-PC-1762 | December 6, 2017 Page 1 of 27
[1] Dennis Meadows appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief.
He raises two issues which we revise and restate as whether he was deprived of
effective assistance of counsel at his competency hearing and trial. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] The relevant facts as discussed in Meadows’s direct appeal follow:
Jeremy Hubble (“Hubble”) attended a classmate’s party at
Raccoon Lake in Parke County. After attending the party,
Hubble told his uncle, Meadows, that there was a golf cart at the
house where the party was held. In the early morning hours of
February 8, 2006, Meadows drove Hubble out to the house
where the party had taken place. One of the two of them kicked
in the door of Michael Fishero’s (“Fishero”) house once they
arrived. They found a golf cart and a John Deere riding
lawnmower in the garage.
The two then walked to the pole barn located next door and
broke into that building, which belonged to Edward Helms
(“Helms”). They took several tools from the barn including a
floor jack, air compressor, a DeWalt tool pack, a pressure
washer, socket set, extension cords, and gas cans, among other
things. Hubble and Meadows loaded these items into the bed of
Meadows’s truck and drove to Meadows’s home to hitch up his
trailer. Once at Meadows’s home they hooked up a red, tandem-
axle, box trailer to his truck and returned to Fishero’s house.
They passed Lana Bunting’s (“Lana”) house on their way to
Fishero’s house. Lana, who is Meadows’s sister, called Detective
Justin Cole (“Detective Cole”) of the Parke County Sheriff’s
Department at approximately 7:30 a.m. and left a message for
him that Meadows and her cousin, Hubble, had just driven past
her house towing a red trailer.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 61A01-1608-PC-1762 | December 6, 2017 Page 2 of 27
When Meadows and Hubble arrived at Fishero’s house, they
loaded the golf cart and the lawnmower into the trailer. They
walked to another neighbor’s house, broke the window, and went
inside, but found nothing that they wanted to steal. They
returned to Meadows’s house and unhooked the trailer. Hubble
and Meadows then drove to Meadows’s rental house near Shades
State Park.
Detective Cole listened to the messages left on his voicemail at
around 8:30 a.m. He spoke with Chief Deputy Bill Todd of the
Parke County Sheriff’s Department, who had investigated the
burglaries earlier that day. Detective Cole and Chief Deputy
Eddie McHargue, also of the Parke County Sheriff’s Department,
went to Meadows’s house. Meadows’s work truck and the red
trailer were in the front of the house, but no one was at home.
Detective Cole noticed Hubble’s brother, Seth, watching them
from around the corner of the house and talking on a cordless
telephone. Detective Cole asked Seth if he would let Meadows
know that they were looking for him and that Detective Cole
wanted to speak to him.
Seth had been speaking with Meadows on the cordless telephone
when the officers were looking for Meadows at his house. After
Seth’s telephone call, Meadows and Hubble loaded all of the
stolen tools in Meadows’s truck and began driving around, trying
to decide what to do with the stolen items. Detective Cole and
Deputy McHargue drove to Richard Brown’s house, because
Meadows was known to spend time there. When they were
about 200 yards from the house, they spotted Meadows’s white
pickup truck traveling southbound toward Waveland, Indiana.
The officers attempted to catch up to the pickup, but Meadows
had seen them and “floored it.” Tr. at 64. Meadows was able to
evade the officers and pulled his truck to the side of a road near a
tree line. He and Hubble then threw the stolen items into the
trees. While disposing of the stolen items, Hubble lost his cell
phone and some cigars in a ditch. Meadows and Hubble then
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 61A01-1608-PC-1762 | December 6, 2017 Page 3 of 27
drove to Parkersburg, Indiana. Detective Cole subsequently
located the abandoned, stolen items on the side of the road and
called the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Department to recover
the evidence.
When Hubble and Meadows arrived in Parkersburg, Indiana,
they called Ronald Ruffner (“Ruffner”). Meadows asked Ruffner
to go to Meadows’s house, retrieve the red box trailer, and take it
somewhere out of his driveway. Hubble and Meadows left a ball
hitch of the appropriate size behind a business in Parkersburg and
told Ruffner where he could locate it. Meadows and Hubble
then drove to Pittsboro, Indiana.
Detective Cole then returned to Meadows’s house and set up
surveillance. At approximately 5:30 p.m., Ruffner pulled into
Meadows’s driveway, hooked up the box trailer, and drove
away. Deputy Justin Salisbury, of the Parke County Sheriff’s
Department, had been alerted to watch for the trailer, and saw
Ruffner pulling the trailer. Deputy Salisbury noted that the
trailer did not have functioning taillights. Deputy Salisbury
initiated a traffic stop of Ruffner, who was unable to produce a
registration certificate for the trailer. The license plate for the
trailer was for a different trailer. More specifically, the license
plate was registered to Meadows and his wife for a black 2005
trailer, and Ruffner was towing a red box trailer. Ruffner told
Deputy Salisbury that the trailer belonged to Meadows. Deputy
Salisbury asked Ruffner to call Meadows, and Ruffner placed the
call. Deputy Salisbury asked for the telephone number so that he
could telephone Meadows himself. Meadows never returned the
telephone call.
The locks were cut off of the trailer and its contents were
inventoried. The trailer contained the golf cart and lawnmower
stolen from Fishero’s residence.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 61A01-1608-PC-1762 | December 6, 2017 Page 4 of 27
Meadows v. State, No. 61A01-1009-CR-483, slip op. at 2-5 (Ind. Ct. App. April
14, 2011), trans. denied.
[3] On October 9, 2008, the State charged Meadows with three counts of burglary
as class B felonies. In February 2009, Attorney Don Darnell was appointed to
represent Meadows. On July 27, 2009, Attorney Darnell filed a Motion for
Psychiatric Examination to Determine Competence to Stand Trial, and on
September 4, 2009, the court granted the motion and appointed Dr. Michael
Murphy and Dr. David Hilton to conduct an examination of Meadows.
[4] In his report dated October 22, 2009, Dr. Murphy wrote that Meadows did not
have confidence in the capacity of his attorney to defend him and wrote the
following under the heading Competency to Stand Trial:
During the evaluation, Mr. Meadows displayed the capacity to
understand the charges against him and had an appreciation of
the range and nature of potential penalties. He evidenced an
appropriate appraisal of the offenses he is charges [sic] with and
the potential penalties. He has knowledge of the role of defense
counsel, prosecuting attorney, judge, jury, defendant, and
witnesses. He has the capacity to understand trial procedure.
The primary difficulty in Mr. Meadows [sic] competence to stand
trial arise as a consequence of his irritability, low mood,
depression, and oppositionality that arise from major depressive
disorder. The symptoms and disorder substantially impair his
capacity to assist and cooperate with his attorney in planning
legal strategy for his defense and he cannot disclose to his
attorney available pertinent fact surrounding the offense in a
helpful and accurate manner. His condition impairs his ability to
testify accurately and relevantly and realistically challenge
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 61A01-1608-PC-1762 | December 6, 2017 Page 5 of 27
prosecution witnesses. He has not been taking medication that
would effectively treat his symptoms and he is in need of
psychiatric treatment.
Direct Appeal Appellant’s Appendix Volume II at 119.
[5] In Dr. Hilton’s report filed on December 30, 2009, he mentioned that Meadows
had a “very poor relationship with his attorney” and that he did not trust
Attorney Darnell. Id. at 131. The report stated:
I can not specifically address this defendant’s capacity to disclose
information to his attorney, but based on his ability to answer
questions not specific to his cases today, I have no evidence to
suggest he would have an impairment in this area.
Mr. Meadows had the ability to realistically challenge
prosecution’s witnesses. He believed that Jeremy Wilkinson-
Hubble will testify falsely against him in court, stating that
Hubble has given police false information. He stated that, if
someone did testify falsely against him, he would try to get his
attorney to make them tell the truth.
There was no evidence based on today’s evaluation to suggest
that Mr. Meadows does not have the ability to testify relevantly
should he choose to do so.
Id. at 132. Dr. Hilton’s report concluded:
In conclusion, I can not render a definitive opinion regarding the
issue of criminal responsibility. Mr. Meadows’ refusal to discuss
the details of his case limits my ability to comment on his
capability of appraising legal defenses. In addition he has a very
adversarial relationship with his defense counselor. Otherwise, it
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 61A01-1608-PC-1762 | December 6, 2017 Page 6 of 27
is my opinion, within reasonable medical certainty, that Mr.
Meadows does have sufficient present ability to consult with his
attorney with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and
rational, as well as factual understanding of the proceedings
against him.
Id. at 133.
[6] On January 5, 2010, the court held a hearing on Meadows’s competency to
stand trial. Attorney Darnell noted the reports, stated that Dr. Hilton’s report
indicated that Meadows stated that he did not have any confidence in him as
his trial counsel, and asked that his appearance be withdrawn and that the court
appoint a new attorney. The court stated that it was going to tell the parties
what it was inclined to do and that appeared Meadows would benefit from
placement at Logansport. The prosecutor stated that Meadows did not meet
the legal standard for incompetency and that Meadows was just depressed
because he was facing prison time. Attorney Darnell then stated that Meadows
had something he wanted to say, and Meadows stated:
Your Honor, I’m in the --- I’m fully competent to stand trial.
Yeah, I’m depressed. I’m in a bad situation and I’d just done a
year at the worst prison in the State of Indiana, and my wife just
left me and I feel I’ve got a prosecutor for an attorney and, I
mean there’s --- and I understand everything that’s going on and
you know, I’m just --- it’s, you know, it’s right around the
holidays. It’s a tough position and, you know, my family’s
working on trying to hire me an attorney, and I feel that the
client-attorney relationship between me and Mr. Darnell has
deteriorated to the point where we can’t proceed in a professional
manner. Every piece of advice he gives me, I decline it just
because I feel I don’t trust him. Medication won’t --- and I was
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 61A01-1608-PC-1762 | December 6, 2017 Page 7 of 27
on medication whenever I was at the farm and I was just
depressed and --- but I understand everything that’s going on and
I understand that --- and I’ve asked for certain documents from
Darnell and I haven’t got them and we just --- we just keep
butting heads on things and he brought me a plea, didn’t explain
everything to me and then the plea was rejected from the State,
so I just feel that --- that the relationship between Darnell and I is
just at the point where we can’t proceed and I --- so far I haven’t
talked to my sister to find out whether she has got the money for
an attorney, but she --- I feel very confident that she can, and then
we’ll be able to proceed.
Petitioner’s Exhibit 2 at 5-6.
[7] The court then stated:
[A]fter hearing what you’ve just said, and the way that you’re
able to speak, you’re able to convey pretty clearly what your
wishes are, and you show an understanding of what’s going on
and what your attorney is --- what you expect your attorney to
do. So I think I’m going to go ahead and find that you are
competent to stand trial and ready to proceed, and I’ll give you
one change of attorney. You understand that this delay in the
trial is going to be attributable to you.
Id. at 6-7. Meadows answered: “Yes, sir.” Id. at 7. In January 2010, the court
withdrew the appointment of Attorney Darnell and appointed Attorney James
Bruner to represent Meadows.
[8] On July 9, 2010, the State amended Count I to burglary as a class C felony and
that same month, the court conducted a jury trial. During trial, the following
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 61A01-1608-PC-1762 | December 6, 2017 Page 8 of 27
exchange occurred between the prosecutor and Detective Cole regarding his
preliminary conversation with Meadows via cell phone:
Q How did the conversation start out?
A I told him who I was, informed him of my identity and my
employment, asked him if he would open his trailer for us.
Q And did he – what was his reply to that?
A He said that I’d just as soon not until I talk to my attorney.
Q What was the next thing that you asked Mr. Meadows?
A I’d asked him why. He said he was not really sure what’s
going on.
Q What was the next thing that you guys talked about?
A I then asked him what was in his trailer and his reply was, “I
better talk to my attorney first.”
*****
Q Did he say anything else?
A He denied seeing the gray unmarked police car that I had been
in with Eddie McHargue. He also said that he’d been driving an
S-10 pick-up, which is a smaller pick-up, around that day and not
a red and white Ford truck. I asked him if anybody could verify
his whereabouts just trying to get – see if there was anybody that
could verify what he was telling me, and he said no, then he said
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 61A01-1608-PC-1762 | December 6, 2017 Page 9 of 27
he needed to get with an attorney before he identified anybody
that could verify his whereabouts.
Trial Transcript at 180-181.
[9] The court admitted a twenty-minute recording of relevant portions of a
telephone call between Detective Cole and Meadows that occurred in March
2008 after Hubble had been arrested. In the recording, Meadows stated that
Meadows could call his attorney, asked Detective Cole if his attorney could call
him, talked about his attempts at reaching his attorney, discussed turning
himself in, and stated that a cleanup statement could be one small thing he
could help out on and that he appreciated Detective Cole calling him back. The
court also admitted an October 15, 2009 recording of an inmate phone call from
Meadows in which Meadows stated he wanted to “get” certain houses, that his
sister Lana wants to run her mouth, and that he was chased down the highway.
State’s Exhibit 74 at 0:30-1:10.
[10] During closing argument, the prosecutor stated in part: “While Detective Cole
was talking to Mr. Meadows on the phone he refuses to tell him where he’s at.
He gives a lot of cock and bull stories about when he was driving that white and
red Ford F-150 and when he wasn’t.” Id. at 220-221. Meadows’s trial counsel
commented on Meadows’s discussions with his counsel and Detective Cole in
his closing argument. Specifically, he stated:
So Jeremy Hubble is arrested and he’s at the Parke County Jail
February 28th of 2008. Mr. Meadows has already been talking to
an attorney. Mr. Meadows calls and has this conversation
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 61A01-1608-PC-1762 | December 6, 2017 Page 10 of 27
regarding a cleanup statement with Detective Cole in which he
talks about his involvement, and they talk about what will
happen and Cole explains to him what a cleanup statement is
and [Meadows] talks about the difficulty that he was having
getting in touch with Brett Gibson, who was his attorney at the
time. He tells Mr. Cole why don’t you try to call Mr. Gibson
too. Why don’t you give the Prosecutor Mr. Gibson’s name and
perhaps they can get in touch with him if they want to. The
conversation ends with I’ll try to call him and you try to call him
too. What did [Meadows] think was going to happen? Well
during that conversation there was also discussion about whether
or not [Meadows] and his attorney needed to talk to the Parke
County Prosecutor or the Montgomery County Prosecutor.
There was discussion between Cole and – Detective Sergeant
Cole and [Meadows] regarding a jail time and/or in home
detention. [Meadows] did not believe that he was going to be
charged with these burglaries and there’s a very simple reason
why. He didn’t commit the burglaries. It’s part of the reason
why there’s such this wide timeline before they ever go ahead
and try to take their shot at let’s charge him and see what
happens.
Id. at 226-227. Meadows’s trial counsel also argued to the jury:
Discuss very carefully the evidence of the conversation between
[Meadows] and Officer Cole about the cleanup statement. When
poor old naive [Meadows] he’s getting nervous because he had
an attorney representing him on this, but when he – when he’d
been waiting and it’s been, by the time that Mr. Hubble is picked
up, it’s been two years and 20 days of waiting, not knowing
whether they’re going to try to blame him for the burglary or
whether he’s going to be charged with possession of the stolen
property in Parke County or whether he’s going to be charged
with possession of stolen property in Putnam County. He’s got
lawyers. He’s tried to call the lawyer. He’s particularly trying to
call a lawyer when he sees there’s finally some movement in the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 61A01-1608-PC-1762 | December 6, 2017 Page 11 of 27
case, that Mr. Hubble’s been picked up, he can’t get in touch
with him so he gets in touch with Cole and asks him what about
a cleanup statement, what am I looking at, tells him about the
people that he has been involved with who are threatening. And
he’s expecting that he’s looking at possession of stolen property.
*****
Those burglaries were committed by Hubble. Mr. Meadows has
some culpability. (Indiscernible.) It’s why he had a lawyer to
negotiate for him. (Indiscernible) it’s expected to be charged with
the right thing.
Id. at 239-242.
[11] During rebuttal, the prosecutor stated:
The conversations with Mr. Meadows on that particular day
when they are getting a search warrant for his actual house,
Detective Cole, when he got a hold of him that night, said would
you mind opening your trailer for me. He said I’d just as soon
not until I talk to my attorney. When asked why he said he’s
really not sure what was going on. When asked what was in his
trailer [Meadows] said I better talk to my attorney first.
Meadows said that he’d been involved with Jeremy – or had seen
Jeremy Hubble earlier that day, but wasn’t hanging out with him
at the current time that he talked to Cole that night shortly before
12:00. Meadows confirmed that he was still in the same pick-up
truck, but wouldn’t disclose his whereabouts.
Id. at 246.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 61A01-1608-PC-1762 | December 6, 2017 Page 12 of 27
[12] The jury found Meadows guilty as charged. The court sentenced him to six
years for Count I, twelve years each for Counts II and III, and ordered the
sentences to be served consecutively for an aggregate sentence of thirty years.
[13] On direct appeal, Meadows claimed that the warrantless search of his trailer
violated the protections provided by the Fourth Amendment to the United
States Constitution and Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution.
Meadows, slip op. at 5. This Court affirmed, held that Deputy Salisbury was
required to take the trailer into his custody and that a search warrant was not
required to conduct an inventory of the impounded vehicle, and noted that
“[e]ven if the evidence had been erroneously admitted, Hubble testified to the
events in question and the evidence found in the trailer was cumulative and
corroborative of that testimony.” Id. at 10.
[14] On October 23, 2015, Meadows filed a petition for post-conviction relief
alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel for multiple reasons
including that his counsel sought to withdraw during the competency hearing
“essentially allowing [him] to represent himself at the hearing.” Post-
Conviction Appendix Volume II at 7.
[15] On March 24, 2016, the court held a hearing. Attorney Darnell testified that he
received a copy of the transcript of the January 5, 2010 hearing, but that he did
not recall that particular hearing. When asked if he recalled when Meadows
asked him if he could speak, Attorney Darnell answered in part: “[P]robably
Mr. Meadows was talking in my ear at the time I’m talking to the Judge, and
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 61A01-1608-PC-1762 | December 6, 2017 Page 13 of 27
that’s probably when he said I want to talk to the Judge, or something. That’s
my best guess of how that came about.” Post-Conviction Transcript at 14.
Meadows’s trial counsel, Attorney Bruner, testified that he had practiced law
for thirty-three years, that Meadows had several cases pending, and that he had
extensive conversations with Meadows that would have included “both his
right to and strategy discussions in determination as to whether or not it was in
his best interest to testify at his trials.” Id. at 23. Meadows’s post-conviction
counsel showed Attorney Bruner page 180 of the trial transcript regarding
Meadows’s statement about talking to his attorney, and Attorney Bruner stated
that he had no independent recollection of it. When asked if his testimony
would be that he did not feel that there was a valid objection or that he had a
strategic reason for not objecting, Attorney Bruner answered:
To the --- to the question related to him indicating that maybe he
should talk to an attorney first. Mr. Meadows had had
conversations with the police officers where he had maintained
his innocence in these matters. I felt that with --- that at some
point in time, a jury would expect that a reasonably prudent
person is going to cooperate with the police to some extent, but
then say maybe I need to talk to a lawyer.
Id. at 28. He testified that he did not recall a strategic reason for not objecting
to the prosecutor’s closing argument. When asked if he had done any research
about the admissibility of pre-arrest silence prior to trial, Attorney Bruner
answered affirmatively. On cross-examination, Attorney Bruner testified that
Meadows understood the charges and that there were not any issues as to
Meadows’s ability to participate in the trial. Meadows testified that he wanted
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 61A01-1608-PC-1762 | December 6, 2017 Page 14 of 27
to speak at the competency hearing but he did not want to represent himself and
never indicated to Attorney Darnell that he wanted to represent himself.
[16] On July 8, 2016, the court denied Meadows’s petition for post-conviction relief.
The court’s order states:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. In regards to the ineffective assistance of counsel at the
Petitioner’s Competency Hearing, this Court would note that the
report of Michael Murphy, Ph.D. stated that:
“Mr. Meadows displayed the capacity to understand the charges
against him and had an appreciation of the range and nature of
potential penalties. He evidenced an appropriate appraisal of the
offenses [he is charged] with and the potential penalties. He has
knowledge of the role of defense counsel, prosecuting attorney,
judge, jury, defendant, and witness. He has the capacity to
understand trial procedure.”
2. In addition, the report of David K. Hilton, MD stated:
“Otherwise, it is my opinion, within reasonable medical
certainty, that Mr. Meadows does have sufficient present ability
to consult with his attorney with a reasonable degree of rational
understanding and rational, as well as factual understanding of
the proceedings against him”.
3. Additionally, the Court itself spoke at length with [Meadows]
at the competency hearing before making its determination.
4. Finally, the Court would note that [Meadows] was tried and
found guilty under an unrelated cause number with a completely
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 61A01-1608-PC-1762 | December 6, 2017 Page 15 of 27
different attorney in the time period following the Competency
Hearing and the trial that is the basis for the instant Post
Conviction Relief. During this intervening period, neither
Defense Counsel nor [Meadows] voiced any continuing concerns
about [Meadows’s] competency.
5. The alleged improper testimony claimed by [Meadows]
referred to statements made by [Meadows] before he was either
arrested or in custody. . . .
*****
6. The entire exchange between Detective Cole and [Meadows]
is encompassed on pages 179 to 183 of the Transcript. During
this testimony, it is apparent that [Meadows] was more than
willing to answer some questions posed by Detective Cole.
Furthermore, as noted above, if a person is not in custody, police
are not required to honor a request for counsel and cease
questioning. Bean v. State, 973 N.E.2d 35, 40 (Ind. Ct. App.
2012)[, trans. denied.]
7. When reviewed in the full context, it is apparent that there is
no direct or indirect implication to be drawn from this line of
questioning. Neither the deputy prosecutor nor the witness dwell
on this exchange and no follow up questions are asked as to what
conclusions the witness (or the jury) should draw. The testimony
is merely a sequence of questions regarding the conversation
between Detective Cole and [Meadows].
8. Likewise, during the rebuttal closing, the Deputy Prosecutor
merely summarizes this exchange within the context of the full
interview but does not imply or ask the jury to draw any
conclusions as to such statements being evidence of guilt on the
part of [Meadows]. The State made no comment on
[Meadows’s] pre-arrest silence, refusal to answer specific
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 61A01-1608-PC-1762 | December 6, 2017 Page 16 of 27
questions, and never implied that requesting an attorney when
being questioned about a crime was evidence of guilt.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
*****
7. The Court finds that no prosecutorial misconduct was
committed by the line of questioning and that trial counsel was
not ineffective for his failure to object thereto.
8. Alternatively, even if such testimony could be deemed
inappropriate, [Meadows] has not proven that the minimal
testimony and brief statement in closing satisfies the prejudice
prong of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. A review of
the full transcript clearly displays that the outcome of the trial
would not have been different. The evidence, including
testimony by the co-defendant, was overwhelming.
Post-Conviction Appendix Volume II at 50-53.
Discussion
[17] Before discussing Meadows’s allegations of error, we note the general standard
under which we review a post-conviction court’s denial of a petition for post-
conviction relief. The petitioner in a post-conviction proceeding bears the
burden of establishing grounds for relief by a preponderance of the evidence.
Fisher v. State, 810 N.E.2d 674, 679 (Ind. 2004); Ind. Post-Conviction Rule 1(5).
When appealing from the denial of post-conviction relief, the petitioner stands
in the position of one appealing from a negative judgment. 810 N.E.2d at 679.
On review, we will not reverse the judgment unless the evidence as a whole
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 61A01-1608-PC-1762 | December 6, 2017 Page 17 of 27
unerringly and unmistakably leads to a conclusion opposite that reached by the
post-conviction court. Id. Further, the post-conviction court in this case
entered findings of fact and conclusions thereon in accordance with Indiana
Post-Conviction Rule 1(6). Id. “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.” Id.
In this review, we accept findings of fact unless clearly erroneous, but we
accord no deference to conclusions of law. Id. The post-conviction court is the
sole judge of the weight of the evidence and the credibility of witnesses. Id.
[18] The issue is whether Meadows was denied effective assistance of counsel.
Meadows argues that he received ineffective assistance at his competency
hearing and at trial. Generally, to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of
counsel, a petitioner must demonstrate both that his counsel’s performance was
deficient and that the petitioner was prejudiced by the deficient performance.
French v. State, 778 N.E.2d 816, 824 (Ind. 2002) (citing Strickland v. Washington,
466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052 (1984), reh’g denied). A counsel’s performance is
deficient if it falls below an objective standard of reasonableness based on
prevailing professional norms. Id. “A fair assessment of attorney performance
requires that every effort be made to eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight,
to reconstruct the circumstances of counsel’s challenged conduct, and to
evaluate the conduct from counsel’s perspective at the time.” Strickland, 466
U.S. at 689, 104 S. Ct. at 2065. To meet the appropriate test for prejudice, the
petitioner must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 61A01-1608-PC-1762 | December 6, 2017 Page 18 of 27
counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been
different. French, 778 N.E.2d at 824. A reasonable probability is a probability
sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. Perez v. State, 748 N.E.2d
853, 854 (Ind. 2001). Failure to satisfy either prong will cause the claim to fail.
French, 778 N.E.2d at 824. Most ineffective assistance of counsel claims can be
resolved by a prejudice inquiry alone. Id.
[19] When considering a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a “strong
presumption arises that counsel rendered adequate assistance and made all
significant decisions in the exercise of reasonable professional judgment.”
Morgan v. State, 755 N.E.2d 1070, 1072 (Ind. 2001). “[C]ounsel’s performance
is presumed effective, and a defendant must offer strong and convincing
evidence to overcome this presumption.” Williams v. State, 771 N.E.2d 70, 73
(Ind. 2002). Evidence of isolated poor strategy, inexperience, or bad tactics will
not support a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Clark v. State, 668
N.E.2d 1206, 1211 (Ind. 1996), reh’g denied, cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1171, 117 S.
Ct. 1438 (1997). “Reasonable strategy is not subject to judicial second
guesses.” Burr v. State, 492 N.E.2d 306, 309 (Ind. 1986). We “will not lightly
speculate as to what may or may not have been an advantageous trial strategy
as counsel should be given deference in choosing a trial strategy which, at the
time and under the circumstances, seems best.” Whitener v. State, 696 N.E.2d
40, 42 (Ind. 1998). In order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance due to
the failure to object, the defendant must show a reasonable probability that the
objection would have been sustained if made. Passwater v. State, 989 N.E.2d
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 61A01-1608-PC-1762 | December 6, 2017 Page 19 of 27
766, 772 (Ind. 2013) (citing Wrinkles v. State, 749 N.E.2d 1179, 1192 (Ind. 2001),
cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1019, 122 S. Ct. 1610 (2002)).
A. Competency Hearing
[20] Meadows argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at his
competency hearing because his counsel failed to object to the hearing
proceeding after counsel had moved to withdraw, and that counsel failed to
protect his client by not continuing to represent Meadows’s interests at the
hearing.1 The State argues that neither of the doctors that evaluated Meadows
before the competency hearing definitively concluded that he was incompetent
to stand trial and that trial counsel appointed after Attorney Darnell’s
withdrawal had extensive discussions with Meadows before trial and did not
observe any indications that Meadows was incompetent.
[21] Generally, the test for determining competency is whether the defendant has
sufficient present ability to consult with defense counsel with a reasonable
degree of rational understanding, and whether the defendant has a rational as
well as a factual understanding of the proceedings against him. State v. Davis,
898 N.E.2d 281, 284 (Ind. 2008).
1
Meadows also asserts that his counsel was deficient by not objecting to the State’s misstatement of the
standard for competency at the hearing, but he does not develop this argument. Accordingly, this argument
is waived. See Shane v. State, 716 N.E.2d 391, 398 n.3 (Ind. 1999) (holding that the defendant waived
argument on appeal by failing to develop a cogent argument).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 61A01-1608-PC-1762 | December 6, 2017 Page 20 of 27
[22] We observe that Attorney Darnell filed a Motion for Psychiatric Examination
to Determine Competence to Stand Trial and that Meadows acknowledges that
Attorney Darnell was correct in moving to withdraw based upon the
information in Dr. Hilton’s report. Dr. Murphy’s report stated that Meadows
displayed the capacity to understand the charges against him, had an
appreciation of the range and nature of potential penalties, evidenced an
appropriate appraisal of the offenses and potential penalties, had knowledge of
the role of defense counsel, prosecuting attorney, judge, jury, defendant, and
witnesses, and had the capacity to understand trial procedure. While Dr.
Murphy’s report stated that Meadows’s symptoms and major depressive
disorder impaired his capacity to assist and cooperate with his attorney and to
testify accurately, it also stated that Meadows had not been taking medication
that would effectively treat his symptoms, and Meadows does not point to
evidence suggesting he was not on medication following his examination and
prior to trial. We also observe that Dr. Hilton’s report stated that he had no
evidence to suggest Meadows would have an impairment in his capacity to
disclose information to his attorney or to suggest that Meadows did not have
the ability to testify. Dr. Hilton also stated that Meadows had the ability to
challenge the prosecution’s witnesses and concluded that he did have sufficient
ability to consult with his attorney with a reasonable degree of rational
understanding.
[23] The record also reveals that, while the trial court initially indicated that it was
going to tell the parties what it was inclined to do and that it appeared that
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 61A01-1608-PC-1762 | December 6, 2017 Page 21 of 27
Meadows would benefit from placement at Logansport, after further discussion
Meadows stated in part that he was “fully competent to stand trial,” and the
court engaged in an exchange with him. Petitioner’s Exhibit 2 at 5. Moreover,
at the post-conviction hearing, the prosecutor asked Meadows’s trial counsel if
he ever had any concerns regarding Meadows’s competency after he began his
representation, and trial counsel answered:
No. It appeared that Mr. Meadows understood the charges
against him, understood law, understood the possible penalties,
was able to participate in reviewing and preparing evidence and
making --- having discussions regarding potential strategies and
all that. There were not any issues on my part as to his ability to
participate in the trial of his case --- cases.
Post-Conviction Transcript at 35. Further, during cross-examination of
Meadows at the post-conviction hearing, the following exchange occurred:
Q Now, during all that time period, once Mr. Bruner was
appointed and you went through essentially two jury trials, did
you ever have any concerns about your competency thereafter?
A Not that I felt.
Q Okay, so you were pretty much good to go after, as far as you
know? You didn’t raise any concerns.
A Yes. Yeah.
Q So you went through two jury trials and in your current state,
as you recollect today, you’ve had no problems, as far as your
competency, in assisting your counsel?
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 61A01-1608-PC-1762 | December 6, 2017 Page 22 of 27
A No.
Id. at 44.
[24] Under the circumstances, we cannot say that we are left with a definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been made or that reversal is warranted on this
basis.
B. Trial
[25] Meadows points to United States ex. rel. Savory v. Lane, 832 F.2d 1011 (7th Cir.
1987), for the proposition that the State’s use in its case-in-chief and in closing
argument of a defendant’s pre-custody statement to police that he did not want
to talk about the case and did not want to make any statements violated the
Fifth Amendment. Meadows acknowledges that Indiana courts had not
squarely addressed the issue at the time of his trial. He asserts that trial counsel
had ample basis to object to the State’s use of his refusal to answer questions as
substantive evidence against him given the rulings in Clancy v. State, 829 N.E.2d
203 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied, and Akard v. State, 924 N.E.2d 202 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2010), clarified on reh’g, 928 N.E.2d 623, summarily affirmed in relevant
part by, 937 N.E.2d 811 (Ind. 2010), as well as the Seventh Circuit holding in
Lane.
[26] The State contends that trial counsel was not deficient because there was no
binding authority in Indiana holding that evidence concerning a defendant’s
pre-arrest, pre-Miranda silence was inadmissible at the time of Meadows’s trial
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 61A01-1608-PC-1762 | December 6, 2017 Page 23 of 27
and that several courts in other jurisdictions had indicated that such evidence
was admissible. It also asserts, even assuming trial counsel was deficient,
Meadows failed to show he was prejudiced given the substantial evidence of his
guilt.
[27] In Clancy, the court addressed the defendant’s argument that the State violated
his Fifth Amendment right to silence when, during its case-in-chief, it
questioned a police officer regarding his failure to contact the officer to provide
his version of the accident while the investigation was ongoing but before
Clancy was charged. 829 N.E.2d at 211. At trial, Clancy moved for a mistrial
on this basis, which was denied. Id. We stated that “[i]t would appear that the
State was treading on thin ice” and that “[r]eference to Clancy’s pre-arrest
silence during the State’s case-in-chief was, at best, highly dubious, and the
State proceeds at its peril in such situations.” Id. We observed that the trial
court admonished the jury and presumed that the trial court’s timely and
accurate admonishment cured any error in the State’s elicitation of Clancy’s
pre-arrest silence during its case-in-chief. Id. at 211-212.
[28] In November 2010, months after Meadows’s July 2010 trial, this Court
commented on Clancy in Owens v. State, 937 N.E.2d 880 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010),
reh’g denied, trans. denied. In Owens, we addressed the defendant’s argument that
the State impermissibly used evidence of his right against self-incrimination
guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment as substantive evidence of his guilt. 937
N.E.2d at 885. We observed that the Supreme Court of the United States had
not addressed whether a defendant’s pre-arrest silence may be used as
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 61A01-1608-PC-1762 | December 6, 2017 Page 24 of 27
substantive evidence and that the federal circuit courts were split on the issue.
Id. at 886-887. We cited the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Lane, which is cited
by Meadows on appeal, as an example of a federal circuit court that had held
that the State’s substantive use of a defendant’s pre-arrest silence violates the
Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Id. at 887-888. We also
stated that “Indiana courts have not squarely addressed the issue” and that the
Clancy court was not required to make a definitive ruling on the
constitutionality of the State’s use of the silence. Id. at 890. We ultimately held
that the very threat that the State may use a person’s silence as self-
incriminating evidence of guilt at trial places one on the horns of a dilemma
during even investigatory proceedings, i.e., whether to make statements that
could later be used to incriminate oneself or to remain silent. Id. at 891. We
emphasized that we did not determine that all pre-arrest, pre-Miranda silences
were unprotected by the Fifth Amendment and that the holding was strictly
limited to the particular facts of that case. Id. at 892.
[29] With respect to Akard, which is cited by Meadows, the State used the
defendant’s post-arrest, pre-Miranda silence as substantive evidence in its case-
in-chief. 924 N.E.2d at 209. The Court observed that the Seventh Circuit had
concluded that, even if the defendant testifies at trial, it is a violation of the
Fifth Amendment for the State to introduce evidence of the defendant’s post-
arrest, pre-Miranda silence in its case-in-chief. Id. (citing United States v.
Hernandez, 948 F.2d 316, 323 (7th Cir. 1991), reh’g denied). The Court
concluded that the brevity of the references in comparison to the other
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 61A01-1608-PC-1762 | December 6, 2017 Page 25 of 27
substantial evidence presented to prove the defendant’s guilt led to the
conclusion that the brief mention of his pre-Miranda silence did not rise to the
level of fundamental error. Id. Akard addressed post-arrest silence.
[30] Given that the Supreme Court of the United States had not addressed the issue,
the federal circuits were split, Clancy did not squarely address or make a
definitive ruling on the constitutionality of the State’s use of pre-arrest silence,
and Akard is distinguishable, we cannot say that Meadows has demonstrated a
reasonable probability that an objection would have been sustained if made.
[31] We also observe that at the post-conviction hearing, Meadows’s trial counsel
stated:
Mr. Meadows had had conversations with the police officers
where he had maintained his innocence in these matters. I felt
that with --- that at some point in time, a jury would expect that a
reasonably prudent person is going to cooperate with the police
to some extent, but then say maybe I need to talk to a lawyer.
Post-Conviction Transcript at 28. Further, Meadows’s trial counsel argued at
trial that Meadows was guilty of lesser offenses and appeared to argue that
Meadows was actually being forthcoming by referring the authorities to his
attorney. Accordingly, and particularly in light of the defense’s approach, we
cannot say that trial counsel’s performance was deficient. Further, assuming
that his trial counsel was deficient, we cannot say that Meadows was prejudiced
in light of the strength of the evidence which included the testimony of multiple
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 61A01-1608-PC-1762 | December 6, 2017 Page 26 of 27
officers, Meadows’s sister, and Hubble, as well as recordings of Meadows and
the discovery of the stolen property in Meadows’s trailer.
Conclusion
[32] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of
Meadows’s petition for post-conviction relief.
[33] Affirmed.
Najam, J., and Kirsch, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 61A01-1608-PC-1762 | December 6, 2017 Page 27 of 27