William Cox v. State of Indiana

Feb 29 2016, 10:25 am
APPELLANT, PRO SE ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
William Cox Gregory F. Zoeller
Plainfield Correctional Facility Attorney General of Indiana
Plainfield, Indiana James B. Martin
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
William Cox, February 29, 2016
Appellant-Petitioner, Court of Appeals Case No.
29A02-1508-PC-1221
v. Appeal from the Hamilton
Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Steven R. Nation,
Appellee-Respondent. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
29D01-1502-PC-1884
Pyle, Judge.
Statement of the Case
[1] Appellant/Petitioner, William Cox (“Cox”), appeals the post-conviction court’s
denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, he argues that the
post-conviction court erred when it failed to transfer his petition to the State
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 29A02-1508-PC-1221 | February 29, 2016 Page 1 of 5
Public Defender’s Office after he requested representation by the Public
Defender and attached an affidavit of indigency to his petition. We agree that
the post-conviction court’s failure to transfer the petition to the State Public
Defender’s Office was reversible error, and we reverse and remand with
instructions for the post-conviction court to transfer the petition.
[2] We reverse and remand with instructions.
Issue
Whether the trial court erred by failing to transfer Coz’s petition
for post-conviction relief to the State Public Defender’s Office.
Facts
[3] On February 6, 1987, Cox was convicted of being an habitual traffic violator,
and the trial court ordered his license to be suspended for ten years.
Subsequently, on April 23, 1999, Cox was convicted, pursuant to a guilty plea,
of operating a vehicle as an habitual traffic offender. The trial court sentenced
him to two-and-a-half years and ordered his driving privileges suspended for his
lifetime.
[4] Almost sixteen years later, on February 24, 2015, Cox filed a pro se
handwritten petition for post-conviction relief.1 In his petition, he argued that
he should not have been convicted for operating a vehicle as an habitual traffic
1
Cox was incarcerated when he filed his petition for post-conviction relief and is still incarcerated currently.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 29A02-1508-PC-1221 | February 29, 2016 Page 2 of 5
offender in 1999 because the suspension of his license from his 1987 habitual
traffic offender designation had expired prior to his 1999 offense. The post-
conviction court scheduled a pre-trial conference on the matter and noted that
Cox had not requested representation by a public defender. In response, on
March 25, 2015, Cox filed a formal post-conviction petition in which he stated
that he wished the State Public Defender to represent him and to which he
attached an affidavit of indigency. However, the post-conviction court did not
order a copy of his petition for post-conviction relief to be sent to the State
Public Defender’s Office.
[5] On March 27, 2015, the State filed a motion for a summary denial of Cox’s
petition for post-conviction relief. It argued that Cox had not stated a claim
upon which relief could be granted because, after his 1987 conviction, Cox had
been convicted of Class D felony operating a vehicle after being adjudged an
habitual traffic offender on January 8, 1993, and his driving privileges had been
suspended for life at that time. Therefore, Cox’s driving privileges had been
suspended at the time he had been convicted in 1999. On May 27, 2015, the
post-conviction court granted the State’s motion for summary denial and denied
Cox’s petition for post-conviction relief. The court cited Cox’s 1993 conviction
as the basis for its judgment.
[6] On June 22 and July 24, 2015, respectively, Cox filed a motion to correct error
and an amended motion to correct error. In his amended motion, Cox raised
two new issues. The post-conviction court held a hearing on the amended
motion on July 30, 2015 and denied it on July 31, 2015. Cox now appeals.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 29A02-1508-PC-1221 | February 29, 2016 Page 3 of 5
Decision
[7] On appeal, Cox argues that the post-conviction court erred when it failed to
send his petition for post-conviction relief to the State Public Defender’s Office
after he stated that he wished to be represented by the Public Defender. Indiana
Post-Conviction Rule 1, § 2 mandates that a copy of an indigent prisoner’s
petition for post-conviction relief be forwarded to the State Public Defender’s
Office for review. Barclay v. State, 679 N.E.2d 163, 165 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997).
Specifically, it provides that:
If an affidavit of indigence is attached to the petition [for post-
conviction relief], the clerk shall call this to the attention of the
court. If the court finds that the petitioner is indigent, it shall
allow petitioner to proceed in forma pauperis. If the court finds
the indigent petitioner is incarcerated in the Indiana Department
of Correction, and has requested representation, it shall order a
copy of the petition sent to the Public Defender’s office.
P-C.R. 1, § 2. Our supreme court has noted two reasons behind this rule:
First, it provides the indigent petitioner with counsel thereby
facilitating the orderly and coherent prosecution of the claim
through the trial and appeal courts. Secondly, it insures that the
petition will be presented in the form required by the rule which
in turn effectively implements the underlying policy which is to
limit the number of post-conviction petitions so far as
constitutionally permissible by requiring all known and felt
grievances to be aired in the original or first petition.
Sanders v. State, 401 N.E.2d 694, 695 (Ind. 1980). The Sanders Court noted that
the “referral requirement of [Post Conviction Rule 1, § 2] has considerable
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 29A02-1508-PC-1221 | February 29, 2016 Page 4 of 5
importance to the inmate as well as to the courts.” Id. at 695-96. As such, we
have noted that failure of a post-conviction court to refer a petition to the State
Public Defender’s Office upon the proper proof of indigence warrants reversal
and remand. Barclay, 679 N.E.2d at 165.
[8] Here, Cox requested representation by the State Public Defender’s Office and
properly attached an affidavit of indigency to his petition for post-conviction
relief. Accordingly, we conclude that the post-conviction court’s failure to refer
Cox’s petition to the State Public Defender’s Office was reversible error. See id.
We reverse and remand with instructions for the post-conviction court to
forward Cox’s petition for post-conviction relief to the State Public Defender’s
Office.
[9] Reversed and remanded with instructions.
Baker, J., and Bradford, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 29A02-1508-PC-1221 | February 29, 2016 Page 5 of 5