Stacy Yuron Hart v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2020 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Apr 02 2020, 9:45 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
APPELLANT PRO SE ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Stacy Yuron Hart Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Carlisle, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana
J.T. Whitehead
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Stacy Yuron Hart, April 2, 2020
Appellant-Petitioner, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-PC-2279
v. Appeal from the Vanderburgh
Circuit Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable David D. Kiely,
Appellee-Respondent. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
82C01-1603-PC-1458
Bradford, Chief Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PC-2279| April 2, 2020 Page 1 of 9
Case Summary
[1] In 2014, Stacy Yuron Hart was convicted of Level 3 felony methamphetamine
dealing, Level 6 felony narcotic-drug possession, and Class A misdemeanor
paraphernalia possession and found to be a habitual offender, for which he was
sentenced to an aggregate term of thirty-five years of incarceration. We affirmed
Hart’s convictions on direct appeal, and the Indiana Supreme Court denied
transfer.
[2] In 2018, Hart filed his amended petition for post-conviction relief (“PCR”),
alleging freestanding claims, ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, err by
the Court of Appeals of Indiana, newly discovered evidence regarding the
habitual offender enhancement, and that the Public Defender’s Office and
Court of Appeals of Indiana failed to advise him of the rules and perils of self-
representation on appeal. The post-conviction court denied his petition in full
without a hearing. Hart contends that the post-conviction court erred by
denying him a hearing and PCR. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] The underlying facts leading to Hart’s appeal of the denial of his PCR petition
are as follows:
From July 15–19, 2014, C.D., a fourteen-year-old runaway, lived
with Hart at various locations in Evansville. During this time,
Hart gave someone methamphetamine in exchange for the use of
a motel room and sold methamphetamine from his car and at
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PC-2279| April 2, 2020 Page 2 of 9
multiple residences. On July 19, police picked up C.D. C.D.
tested positive for methamphetamine, Xanax, marijuana, and
synthetic marijuana. Evansville Police Detective Tony Mayhew
interviewed C.D. regarding her prior whereabouts.
Based on what C.D. told him, Detective Mayhew obtained a
search warrant for Hart’s vehicle. On July 24, police stopped
Hart’s vehicle based on Detective Mayhew’s warrant. The officer
found a digital scale, a cigarette case containing baggie corners
and tweezers, a glass pipe with residue, and small baggies with
what he believed were drugs. Testing of the substances in the
baggies revealed 7.16 grams of methamphetamine, two tablets
of methadone, three tablets of hydrocodone, and five tablets
of Tramadol.
The State charged Hart with Level 3 felony dealing in
methamphetamine, Level 6 felony possession of a narcotic drug,
Class A misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia, and Level 6
felony possession of a legend drug. It alleged Hart was an
habitual offender. A jury found Hart guilty of all charges except
Level 6 felony possession of a legend drug, on which the trial
court directed a verdict. The jury concluded Hart was an habitual
offender based on his prior convictions of Class D felony failure
to return to lawful detention in 2002 and Class C felony
possession of a controlled substance in 2005.
The trial court entered convictions and sentenced Hart to
concurrent sentences of fifteen years for Level 3 felony dealing in
methamphetamine, two and a half years for Level 6 felony
possession of a narcotic, and one year for Class A misdemeanor
possession of paraphernalia. Based on his adjudication as an
habitual offender, the trial court enhanced Hart's sentence by
twenty years for an aggregate sentence of thirty-five years.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PC-2279| April 2, 2020 Page 3 of 9
Hart v. State, No. 82A01-1411-CR-472, 2015 WL 6954942, at *1 (Ind. Ct. App.
2015) (footnote omitted), trans. denied. On appeal, Hart argued that his trial
counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress certain evidence, object
to his habitual offender adjudication, and object to his enhanced sentence, with
which we disagreed and affirmed his convictions. Id. Hart sought transfer,
which was denied by the Indiana Supreme Court. Hart v. State, 46 N.E.3d 446
(Ind. 2016).
[4] On July 6, 2018, Hart filed an amended PCR petition, alleging freestanding
claims, ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, error by the Court of Appeals
of Indiana, newly discovered evidence regarding the habitual-offender
enhancement, and that the Public Defender’s Office and Court of Appeals of
Indiana failed to advise him of the rules and perils of self-representation on
appeal. On August 21, 2019, the post-conviction court denied Hart’s petition
without a hearing.
Discussion and Decision
[5] The standard of review for appeals from the denial of PCR is well-settled.
Petitioners who have exhausted the direct-appeal process may challenge the
correctness of their convictions and sentences by filing a post-conviction
petition. Stevens v. State, 770 N.E.2d 739, 745 (Ind. 2002). Petitioner bears the
burden of establishing grounds for PCR by a preponderance of the evidence. Id.
By appealing from a negative judgment, a petitioner faces a rigorous standard of
review. Wesley v. State, 788 N.E.2d 1247, 1250 (Ind. 2003). Denial of PCR will
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PC-2279| April 2, 2020 Page 4 of 9
be affirmed unless, “the evidence as a whole leads unerringly and unmistakably
to a decision opposite that reached by the post-conviction court.” Id. We do not
defer to the post-conviction court’s legal conclusion but do accept its factual
findings unless they are clearly erroneous. Stevens, 770 N.E.2d at 746. The post-
conviction process does not provide a petitioner with a “super-appeal” but,
rather, a “narrow remedy for subsequent collateral challenges to convictions,
challenges which must be based on grounds enumerated in the post-conviction
rules.” Rouster v. State, 705 N.E.2d 999, 1003 (Ind. 1999). Issues that were
known and available but not raised on direct appeal are waived, and issues
raised but decided adversely are res judicata. Id.
I. Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel
[6] Hart raises numerous claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, all
premised on the notion that Scott Barnhart represented him on direct appeal.
The record, however, is clear that Hart ultimately chose to proceed pro se and
file his own brief on direct appeal after Barnhart withdrew. Because Hart chose
to represent himself on direct appeal, he is precluded from claiming ineffective
assistance of appellate counsel. See Dowell v. State, 557 N.E.2d 1063, 1067 (Ind.
Ct. App. 1990) (“If the defendant chooses to proceed pro se, he should realize
he cannot later claim inadequate representation.”), cert. denied.
II. Freestanding Claims
[7] For the first time in his PCR petition, Hart contends that (1) the trial court
lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the charging informations lacked
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PC-2279| April 2, 2020 Page 5 of 9
probable cause, (2) the trial court abused its discretion by issuing the search
warrant because it was unsupported by probable cause, (3) the trial court was
not neutral, and (4) the State’s witness was under duress.1 Because these
freestanding claims were available but not raised on direct appeal, they are
waived for post-conviction review. Rouster, 705 N.E.2d at 1003.
III. Appellate Court Error
[8] Hart contends that we made multiple erroneous decisions in Hart v. State, No.
82A01-1411-CR-472, 2015 WL 6954942, at *1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (footnote
omitted), trans. denied, which was his direct appeal. While our decisions are
subject to review, post-conviction proceedings are not the proper avenue. The
proper avenue is to seek transfer with the Indiana Supreme Court, which Hart
attempted to do following our decision in his direct appeal, which was denied.
IV. Failure to Advise
[9] Hart contends that both the Public Defender’s Office and the Court of Appeals
of Indiana failed to inform him about the basic rules and perils of proceeding
pro se on direct appeal. Hart, however, has not directed our attention to—nor do
we know of any—legal precedent requiring such advisements by either the
1
In his brief, however, Hart seems to allege these claims under ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.
Regardless, this approach still does not get Hart where he needs to go. As previously discussed above, Hart
may not allege ineffective assistance of appellate counsel because he chose to proceed pro se in his direct
appeal.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PC-2279| April 2, 2020 Page 6 of 9
Public Defender’s Office or us. Hart has failed to establish that his denial of
PCR relief in this regard was erroneous.
V. Habitual Offender Enhancement
[10] Hart contends that the Indiana Supreme Court’s opinion in Johnson v. State, 87
N.E.3d 471 (Ind. 2017), which was decided after his direct appeal, invalidates
his habitual offender enhancement. In Johnson, the Court concluded that
pursuant to Indiana Code subsection 35-50-2-8(d), each prior-unrelated felony
conviction used to enhance the sentence of an underlying felony conviction
must meet the ten-year requirement.2 Hart’s Level 3 felony conviction,
however, was enhanced pursuant to Indiana Code subsection 35-50-2-8(b) and
therefore is not affected by Johnson. Hart has failed to establish that the post-
conviction court erred in denying him relief in this regard.
VI. Denial of Evidentiary Hearing
[11] Hart contends that the post-conviction court erred by denying him an
evidentiary hearing regarding his PCR petition. Given that there were no
motions for summary disposition in this matter, it appears that the post-
conviction court denied Hart relief without a hearing pursuant to Indiana Post-
Conviction Rule 1, section 4(f). Indiana Post-Conviction Rule 1, section 4(f)
2
We also note that in Johnson, the Court was considering a subsequent-amended version of Indiana Code
section 35-50-2-8 than the version in effect during Hart’s case.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PC-2279| April 2, 2020 Page 7 of 9
provides, in part, that “[i]f the pleadings conclusively show that petitioner is
entitled to no relief, the court may deny the petition without further
proceedings.”
When a court disposes of a petition under subsection f, we
essentially review the lower court’s decision as we would a
motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court errs in
disposing of a petition in this manner unless the pleadings
conclusively show that petitioner is entitled to no relief. If the
petition alleges only errors of law, then the court may determine
without a hearing whether the petitioner is entitled to relief on
those questions. However, if the facts pled raise an issue of
possible merit, then the petition should not be disposed of under
section 4(f). This is true even though the petitioner has only a
remote chance of establishing his claim.
Allen v. State, 791 N.E.2d 748, 752–53 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (cleaned up), trans.
denied. Specifically, Hart argues that he should have been afforded a hearing in
order to examine his former trial counsel to establish that counsel was
ineffective in failing to allege a possible defense.
[12] Hart’s contention fails for two reasons. First, the pleadings conclusively showed
that Hart was entitled to no relief as a matter of law. Second, even if Hart had
been allowed to examine his trial counsel, he was precluded from arguing
ineffective assistance of trial counsel because it was previously alleged on direct
appeal. See Rouster, 705 N.E.2d at 1003 (noting that issues that were raised on
direct appeal but decided adversely are res judicata). Hart has failed to establish
that the post-conviction court erred by denying him relief without a hearing.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PC-2279| April 2, 2020 Page 8 of 9
[13] The judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.
Baker, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PC-2279| April 2, 2020 Page 9 of 9