Jerry W. Young v. State of Indiana ( 2020 )

FILED
Mar 02 2020, 8:58 am
CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Stephen T. Owens Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Public Defender of Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Liisi Brien Caroline G. Templeton
Deputy Public Defender Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Jerry W. Young, March 2, 2020
Appellant-Petitioner, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-PC-1217
v. Appeal from the Elkhart Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Kristine Osterday,
Appellee-Respondent. Judge
The Honorable Dean O. Burton,
Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
20D01-1706-PC-33
Barnes, Senior Judge.
Statement of the Case
[1] Jerry Young appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for post-
conviction relief. We vacate and remand in part and affirm in part.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-PC-1217 | March 2, 2020 Page 1 of 14
Issues
[2] Young presents two issues for our review, which we restate as:
I. Whether the post-conviction court erred by denying
Young’s claim that his stipulation to habitual offender
enhancements was not knowing, voluntary, and
intelligent because he did not personally waive his right to
a jury trial.
II. Whether the post-conviction court erred by denying
Young’s claim of ineffective assistance of appellate
counsel.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] The underlying facts, as stated in Young’s direct appeal, are as follows:
On October 16, 2012 at around 1:00 a.m., A.B. arrived home and
went to sleep on her couch. At around 3:00 a.m., A.B. was
awaken[ed] by someone knocking on her door. Assuming it was
one of her friends, A.B. opened the door. Instead, it was Young,
who pushed his way into her apartment. A.B. did not know
Young but had seen him before walking near her apartment.
Young, who was intoxicated, sat down on A.B.’s couch, and
A.B. tried to convince him to leave to no avail. Young told A.B.
he wanted to “play a sexual game.” Tr. p. 144. Despite A.B.’s
refusal, Young said “We’re going to do this,” and forced A.B. to
have sexual intercourse with him and to fellate him.
On April 29, 2015, the State charged Young with Class A felony
rape, Class A felony criminal deviate conduct, and Class D
felony intimidation. The State also alleged that Young was a
repeat sexual offender and a habitual criminal offender. After a
jury trial, Young was found guilty as charged and admitted to
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-PC-1217 | March 2, 2020 Page 2 of 14
being a repeat sexual offender and a habitual offender. At
sentencing, the trial court merged the convictions for rape and
criminal deviate conduct and sentenced Young to fifty years for
rape and three years for intimidation to be served concurrently.
The trial court also enhanced Young’s sentence by thirty years
due to his status as a habitual offender and an additional ten
years based on his repeat sexual offender status, for an aggregate
ninety-year sentence.
Young v. State, 57 N.E.3d 857, 858-59 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied (2017).
[4] On direct appeal, this Court found the trial court erred by merging Young’s
convictions for rape and criminal deviate conduct and by applying two
enhancements to the single conviction. We thus remanded the case to the trial
court with instructions to enter judgment of conviction for the lesser-included
offense of Class B felony criminal deviate conduct. In addition, the trial court
was instructed to attach Young’s habitual offender enhancement to his rape
conviction and to attach his repeat sexual offender enhancement to his criminal
deviate conduct conviction. The two enhanced sentences were to be served
concurrently for an aggregate sentence of eighty years. See id. On remand, the
trial court followed our sentencing directive.
[5] In June 2017, Young filed his pro se petition for post-conviction relief, which he
later amended by counsel. A hearing on Young’s petition was held in
September 2018, after which the court took the matter under advisement and
allowed the parties to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
On May 7, 2019, the court issued its order denying Young’s petition. This
appeal ensued.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-PC-1217 | March 2, 2020 Page 3 of 14
Discussion and Decision
[6] To the extent the post-conviction court has denied relief, the petitioner appeals
from a negative judgment and faces the rigorous burden of showing that the
evidence, as a whole, leads unerringly and unmistakably to a conclusion
opposite that reached by the post-conviction court. Harris v. State, 762 N.E.2d
163, 166 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied. 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.
Kistler v. State, 936 N.E.2d 1258, 1261 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied. In this
review, findings of fact are accepted unless they are clearly erroneous, and no
deference is accorded to conclusions of law. Id.
I. Personal Waiver
[7] Young contends that his stipulation to the repeat sexual offender and habitual
criminal offender sentencing enhancements constitutes a guilty plea and that
this plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent because he did not
personally waive his right to a jury trial.
[8] First, we must determine whether Young’s acknowledgement concerning the
habitual enhancements was a guilty plea or merely a stipulation. The post-
conviction court concluded that Young’s stipulation was “essentially a guilty
plea.” Appealed Order p. 11, ¶ 23.
[9] In Garrett v. State, 737 N.E.2d 388 (Ind. 2000), the defendant claimed that his
stipulation to the existence of prior offenses during the habitual offender phase
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-PC-1217 | March 2, 2020 Page 4 of 14
of his trial amounted to a guilty plea, and thus it was error for the trial court to
accept the stipulation without advising him on various rights he would waive by
pleading guilty. See Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S. Ct. 1709, 23 L. Ed.
2d 274 (1969) (trial courts are obliged to inform defendants pleading guilty that
they are waiving right to trial by jury, right to confront one’s accusers, and the
privilege against compulsory self-incrimination). Our Supreme Court discussed
the distinction between a factual stipulation and a guilty plea and stated: “A
stipulation that seeks to establish certain facts does not constitute a guilty plea.”
Garrett, 737 N.E.2d at 392. Noting that Garrett’s stipulation did not establish
that he was an habitual offender but rather merely established the fact that the
prior offenses existed, the Court concluded that the stipulation did not amount
to a guilty plea. Consequently, the trial court was not required to advise Garrett
as to the rights he would waive by pleading guilty.
[10] Here, in its order denying Young’s petition, the post-conviction court
reproduced, in its entirety, the parties’ Stipulation on Prior Convictions. The
following paragraphs of the stipulation are germane to our review:
1. THAT, prior to all relevant dates alleged in this cause of
action, JERRY W. YOUNG (“Defendant”) had accumulated the
following prior unrelated conviction:
On April 8, 2004, JERRY W. YOUNG, in the Elkhart County
Superior Court Three, Elkhart County, Indiana, in Cause
Number 20D03-0310-FC-177, was Convicted of Sexual
Misconduct with a Minor as a Class D Felony under Indiana
Code section 35-42-4-9(b)(1).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-PC-1217 | March 2, 2020 Page 5 of 14
2. THAT Defendant, having accumulated such prior unrelated
conviction as of the date of the offense in this action, is a Repeat Sexual
Offender in that he had accumulated one (1) prior unrelated felony
conviction for a sex offense under or substantially similar to I.C.
§ 35-42-4-1 through I.C. § 35-42-4-9 or I.C. § 35-46-1-3.
3. THAT, prior to all relevant dates alleged in this cause of
action, JERRY W. YOUNG had accumulated the following
prior unrelated convictions:
On or about the 1st day of April, 2000, in the County of Elkhart,
State of Indiana, JERRY W. YOUNG committed the offense of
Sexual Battery, a Felony, and was convicted and sentenced of
said offense on or about the 28th day of December, 2000, in the
Elkhart County Circuit Court, Cause No. 20C01-0005-CF-33,
Elkhart County, Indiana, and;
On or about the 6th day of July, 1997, in the County of Elkhart,
State of Indiana, JERRY W. YOUNG committed the offense of
Battery on a Police Officer, a Felony, and was convicted and
sentenced of said offense on or about the 7th day of November,
1997, in the Elkhart County Superior Court Three, Cause No.
20D03-9707-DF-22, Elkhart County, Indiana.
4. THAT Defendant, having accumulated such prior unrelated
convictions as of the date of the offense in this action, is a Habitual
Criminal Offender in that Defendant had accumulated two (2)
prior unrelated felony convictions.
Appealed Order, pp. 7-8 (emphasis added).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-PC-1217 | March 2, 2020 Page 6 of 14
[11] In addition, the transcript from Young’s trial shows that after the jury reached
its verdict on the principal charges, the court sent the jurors back into the
deliberation room. This colloquy then ensued:
THE COURT: Mr. Young, I’m going to go ahead and
administer an oath to you again, sir. Would you please raise
your right hand for me. Thank you. Sir, do you solemnly swear
or affirm under the pains and penalties for perjury to tell the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you
God?
MR. YOUNG: Yeah.
THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Young, would you state your
full name, please, for the record.
MR. YOUNG: Jerry Young.
THE COURT: Thank you. [Defense Counsel], with regards to
the enhancement as to the Repeat Sexual Offender and the
Habitual Criminal Offender Enhancement, how do you wish to
proceed?
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Judge, I believe we’re going to
proceed by stipulation.
THE COURT: Thank you. [Defense Counsel], let’s go ahead
and take a factual basis as to the stipulation.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: If we could hold on for just a second,
Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-PC-1217 | March 2, 2020 Page 7 of 14
THE COURT: Yes, ma’am.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Judge, if we could go back into the
holding area so I can talk with my client for awhile.
1
Trial Tr. Vol. 4, pp. 128-29. The court was in recess for about four minutes;
when it reconvened, the conversation continued as follows:
[STATE]: I’m tendering to the Court a signed stipulation
regarding repeat sexual offense and the habitual criminal
offenses.
THE COURT: Thank you. If I may just have a moment.
[Court Reporter], [State] has handed to the Court a Stipulation
on Prior Convictions. [State], on the Stipulation on Prior
Convictions any additional record you want to make?
[STATE]: No. Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. [Defense Counsel], any additional
record you want to make on the Stipulation of Prior Convictions?
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I would just like to point out to the
Court that to the extent my client has been able he has
cooperated.
THE COURT: Thank you. All right. We’ll go ahead and show
a Stipulation on the Prior Convictions, which the Court
[interprets] as an admission on the part of Mr. Young to being a
1
Our citation to the Trial Transcript is based on the .pdf pagination.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-PC-1217 | March 2, 2020 Page 8 of 14
Repeat Sexual Offender pursuant to Page 2 of 3 of the charging
information, as well as an admission on the part of Mr. Young to
being an Habitual Criminal Offender as identified on Page 3 of 3
of the charging information. [Defense Counsel], any other
comments or objections to the Court’s interpretation as to the
Stipulation on Prior Convictions?
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: No, Judge.
THE COURT: All right. [State], any objections or
comments on the Court’s interpretation?
[STATE]: No. Thank you, Your Honor.
Id. at 130-31.
[12] Young’s stipulation established the existence of his prior convictions,
established that the prior convictions were unrelated, and confirmed that Young
“is a Repeat Sexual Offender” and “is a Habitual Criminal Offender.”
Appealed Order, pp. 7, 8. Young’s status was proved by his admissions
contained in the stipulation, and there was nothing left to be determined.
Moreover, the trial court accepted the stipulation, stating that it interpreted the
stipulation as Young’s admission to being both a repeat sexual offender and an
habitual criminal offender. The court then specifically asked Young’s counsel if
she had any objections to the court’s interpretation, and she replied in the
negative. Young’s stipulation was the equivalent of a guilty plea.
[13] Having concluded that Young’s stipulation amounted to a guilty plea, we turn
to whether it was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. Young specifically
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-PC-1217 | March 2, 2020 Page 9 of 14
asserts the lack of his personal waiver of a jury trial. In support of his
argument, Young cites Saylor v. State, 55 N.E.3d 354 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans.
denied, in which this Court held that when a defendant pleads guilty to an
habitual offender enhancement, he must personally waive his right to a jury
trial on the enhancement. Id. at 366. For its part, the State acknowledges
Saylor and simply states that it was wrongly decided.
[14] As evidenced by the trial transcript, Young did not personally waive his right to
a jury trial on the repeat sexual offender and habitual criminal offender
enhancements. Accordingly, we vacate the adjudications on these
enhancements and remand this case for a new trial on the repeat sexual
offender and habitual criminal offender enhancements.
II. Assistance of Appellate Counsel
[15] Young next asserts that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to
challenge the sufficiency of the evidence on his rape conviction.
[16] To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant is
required to establish both (1) that counsel’s performance was deficient and (2)
that counsel’s deficient performance prejudiced the defendant. Johnson v. State,
948 N.E.2d 331, 334 (Ind. 2011) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668,
687-96, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984)). To satisfy the first element,
the defendant must show that counsel’s representation fell below an objective
standard of reasonableness and that counsel’s errors were so serious that the
defendant was denied the counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. Bethea
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-PC-1217 | March 2, 2020 Page 10 of 14
v. State, 983 N.E.2d 1134, 1138 (Ind. 2013). In order to satisfy the second
element, the defendant must show prejudice; that is, a reasonable probability
that, but for counsel’s errors, the result of the proceeding would have been
different. Id. at 1139. There is a strong presumption that counsel rendered
effective assistance and made all significant decisions in the exercise of
reasonable professional judgment, and the defendant has the burden of
overcoming this presumption. Harris, 762 N.E.2d at 168-69.
[17] Further, because the strategic decision regarding which issues to raise on appeal
is one of the most important decisions to be made by appellate counsel,
counsel’s failure to raise a specific issue on direct appeal rarely constitutes
ineffective assistance. Brown v. State, 880 N.E.2d 1226, 1230 (Ind. Ct. App.
2008), trans. denied. “For countless years, experienced advocates have
‘emphasized the importance of winnowing out weaker arguments on appeal
and focusing on one central issue if possible, or at most a few key issues.’”
Walker v. State, 988 N.E.2d 1181, 1191 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (quoting Bieghler v.
State, 690 N.E.2d 188, 194 (Ind. 1997)), trans. denied. Accordingly, on review,
we should be particularly deferential to appellate counsel’s strategic decision to
exclude certain issues in favor of other issues more likely to result in a reversal.
Id. To evaluate whether appellate counsel performed deficiently by failing to
raise an issue on appeal, we apply a two-part test: (1) whether the unraised
issue is significant and obvious from the face of the record, and (2) whether the
unraised issue is “clearly stronger” than the raised issues. Walker, 988 N.E.2d
at 1191.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-PC-1217 | March 2, 2020 Page 11 of 14
[18] On direct appeal, counsel raised the issue of the trial court’s double
enhancement of Young’s rape conviction. This argument was successful, and
this Court reversed and remanded with instructions to the trial court to attach
Young’s habitual offender enhancement to his rape conviction and to attach his
repeat sexual offender enhancement to his criminal deviate conduct conviction,
resulting in a ten-year sentence reduction.
[19] Now Young claims that his appellate counsel should have raised the issue of
the sufficiency of the evidence establishing the threat of deadly force element of
his Class A felony rape conviction. In support of his argument, Young alleges
that the evidence concerning a threat of deadly force was inconsistent such that,
had counsel raised the sufficiency issue on appeal, his Class A felony conviction
would have been reduced to a Class B felony.
[20] To be sure, the jury heard inconsistent evidence as to any threats by Young.
For instance, A.B. testified that Young threatened to kill her but then testified
that Young had not said he was going to kill her but that he told her to stop
crying or it would “be bad” for her—which A.B. took to mean that he would
hurt her. Trial Tr. Vol. 1, p. 151. A.B. later clarified:
[STATE]: And you understand your testimony has been
different than what you told the police detective?
[A.B.]: Yes.
[STATE]: Can you explain why that is?
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-PC-1217 | March 2, 2020 Page 12 of 14
[A.B.]: Some parts of it I’ve forgotten and some parts of it
I’ve just put out of my mind.
Id. at 161. And:
[STATE]: And you know that there are some discrepancies on
the 911 call with what you testified today, as well. Isn’t that
correct?
[A.B.]: Yes.
[STATE]: Didn’t you say on the 911 call that the defendant
had a knife?
[A.B.]: Yes.
[STATE]: Why did you say that?
[A.B.]: Cuz I was – I assumed it was a knife when he had
his hand in his pocket but I didn’t actually see the knife.
Trial Tr. Vol. 2, pp. 23-24.
[21] The offense of rape as a Class B felony was submitted to the jury on the verdict
form as a lesser-included offense of the Class A felony rape. The jury heard the
evidence, viewed the witnesses as they testified, and had the option of the
lesser-included B felony rape offense in front of them; yet, it still found Young
guilty of the Class A felony. Where contradictory or inconsistent testimony is
presented at trial, it is up to the jury to resolve such conflicting testimony.
Brown v. State, 830 N.E.2d 956, 968 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). Raising this issue on
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-PC-1217 | March 2, 2020 Page 13 of 14
appeal would merely have been a request for this Court to reweigh the evidence
and judge the credibility of the witnesses, which it cannot do. See Sandleben v.
State, 29 N.E.3d 126, 131 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (appellate court neither reweighs
evidence nor judges credibility of witnesses), trans. denied. Young has not
shown that the unraised issue is clearly stronger than the issue raised by
appellate counsel. Therefore, he has not met his burden of demonstrating that
his appellate counsel performed deficiently.
Conclusion
[22] Based on the foregoing, we vacate Young’s habitual offender adjudications and
remand for a new trial on those enhancements. We further conclude the post-
conviction court properly denied Young’s petition as to his claim of ineffective
assistance of appellate counsel.
[23] Vacated and remanded in part and affirmed in part.
Kirsch, J., and Mathias, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-PC-1217 | March 2, 2020 Page 14 of 14