Ronnie Smith v. State of Indiana ( 2012 )

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any
FILED
Jul 03 2012, 9:29 am
court except for the purpose of
establishing the defense of res judicata, CLERK
of the supreme court,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. court of appeals and
tax court
APPELLANT PRO SE: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
RONNIE SMITH GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Pendleton, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
ELLEN H. MEILAENDER
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
RONNIE SMITH, )
)
Appellant-Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) No. 15A04-1108-PC-445
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Respondent. )
APPEAL FROM THE DEARBORN CIRCUIT COURT
The Honorable James D. Humphrey, Judge
Cause No. 15C01-0811-PC-4
July 3, 2012
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
GARRARD, Senior Judge
In 2007, Ronnie Smith was convicted of Class B felony conspiracy to manufacture
methamphetamine and received a twenty-year sentence. He was acquitted on an
additional charge of dealing. The conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal. See
Smith v. State, No. 15A01-0707-CR-336 (Ind. Ct. App. Apr. 14, 2008), aff’d on reh’g,
trans. denied.
Smith petitioned for post-conviction relief, and the State Public Defender appeared
on his behalf but withdrew in April 2011. Attorney Douglas Holland filed an appearance
and a motion for modification of sentence. A hearing was held on the petition for post-
conviction relief and the motion for modification of sentence on June 2, 2011. On July
18, 2011, the court denied the petition and the motion.
Smith now appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief.
Specifically, he contends that post-conviction counsel was ineffective by failing to call
his original trial counsel and appellate counsel as witnesses at the post-conviction
hearing. The standard of review for the assistance of post-conviction counsel is not the
same as that required under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80
L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984). There is no constitutional right to counsel for post-conviction
proceedings. All that due process requires in such cases is that counsel appear and
represent a petitioner in a procedurally fair setting that resulted in a judgment of the
court. Baum v. State, 533 N.E.2d 1200, 1201 (Ind. 1989); see also Hill v. State, 960
N.E.2d 141, 145 (Ind. 2012).
In Smith’s case that occurred. Counsel filed a motion for modification of
sentence, appeared at the hearing, called three witnesses (including Smith), presented
2
testimony from them, admitted documentary evidence, and made an argument to the
court on behalf of Smith. The hearing was held after notice in the courtroom before the
regular judge.
Smith nonetheless argues that counsel essentially abandoned him by presenting
evidence only on his motion to modify sentence. We disagree. Counsel appeared at the
hearing and made arguments on Smith’s behalf regarding his post-conviction petition.
Moreover, the transcript of the hearing shows that counsel presented evidence in support
of his post-conviction petition. We conclude that the requirements of Baum were clearly
satisfied. See Graves v. State, 823 N.E.2d 1193, 1197 (Ind. 2005) (concluding Baum
standard satisfied where counsel appeared at hearing, called petitioner as a witness, and
submitted two affidavits).
Accordingly, we affirm the court’s decision denying relief.
Affirmed.
RILEY, J., and BARNES, J., concur.
3