Todd Daniels v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Aug 15 2019, 10:54 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
APPELLANT, PRO SE ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Todd Daniels Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Pendleton, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Ellen H. Meilaender
Supervising Deputy Attorney
General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Todd Daniels, August 15, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-PC-388
v. Appeal from the Ripley Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Jeffrey L. Sharp,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Special Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
69C01-1710-PC-1
Pyle, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PC-388 | August 15, 2019 Page 1 of 8
Case Summary
Daniels appeals pro se the denial of his post-conviction petition. He argues that
the post-conviction court erred when it determined that his trial counsel was not
ineffective. Concluding that the post-conviction court did not err, we affirm the
denial of Daniels’ petition.
Issue
Whether the post-conviction court erred in denying Daniels’
petition for post-conviction relief.
Facts
[1] In August 2002, a jury convicted Daniels of three counts of Class A felony child
molesting, five counts of Class B felony and one count of Class C felony incest,
and one count of Class B felony sexual misconduct with a minor. The trial
court sentenced him to an aggregate sixty (60) year sentence, and this Court
affirmed his convictions and sentence on direct appeal. See Daniels v. State,
Cause Number 69A05-0210-CR-524 (July 9, 2003).
[2] In October 2017, Daniels filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief
wherein he argued that he had received ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
Specifically, he contended that his trial counsel “was ineffective for failing to
present [him] with a plea offer made by the State.” (App. Vol. 2 at 12). Daniels
further explained that he had discovered the plea offer while reading through
the Record of Proceedings and his attorney-client file in preparation for filing
his post-conviction petition. According to Daniels, if trial counsel had
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PC-388 | August 15, 2019 Page 2 of 8
“presented the offer to [] Daniels and offered sound advice regarding the
mounting evidence, he surely would have accepted the plea agreement,” which
would have allowed him to plead guilty to one count of Class B felony incest
and one count of Class C felony incest. (App. Vol. 2 at 13).
[3] At the April 2018 post-conviction hearing, Daniels’ trial counsel, John
Kellerman II (“Kellerman”), who had been a licensed Indiana attorney since
1993, testified that he knew that the prosecutor’s office had sent him a plea
offer. He did not specifically remember showing the offer to Daniels.
However, Kellerman explained that when he received plea offers from the
prosecutor’s office, he considered them to be formal offers and that it was his
common practice to present them to his clients. He had no reason to believe
that he had not followed his practice in this case and presented the offer to
Daniels. Kellerman also testified that he “had had multiple conversations with
[Daniels] about [Daniels’] intentions in this case.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 12).
According to Kellerman, Daniels had “made it very plain to [him], on all of the
occasions, that he was innocent and that he was maintaining his innocence and
that since he wasn’t guilty of anything, he was going to be vindicated.” (Tr.
Vol. 2 at 12).
[4] Daniels testified that Kellerman had never communicated the plea offer to him
and that he would have accepted it “given the evidence that was mounting.”
(Tr. Vol. 2 at 15). He also testified that “it was [his] intention throughout the
entirety of the proceedings to plead not guilty.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 18).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PC-388 | August 15, 2019 Page 3 of 8
[5] Following the hearing, the post-conviction court gave the parties thirty days in
which to file proposed findings and conclusions. The State filed its proposed
findings and conclusions on May 10, 2018, the thirtieth day after the hearing.
The following day, the post-conviction court issued its findings and conclusions
denying Daniels’ petition.
[6] In June 2018, Daniels filed a motion to correct error wherein he alleged that
although his proposed findings had not been file-stamped by the Clerk of the
Court until May 14, 2018, three days after the post-conviction court had issued
its findings, he had signed and dated the Certificate of Service on his proposed
findings on May 7, 2018. He asked the trial court to grant his motion based on
the prison mailbox rule, review his proposed findings and conclusions, and
issue a new order.
[7] In response to Daniels’ motion, in June 2018, the post-conviction court vacated
its prior order denying Daniels relief to allow it to review his proposed findings.
In January 2019, the post-conviction court issued findings of fact and
conclusions of law denying Daniels’ petition. Specifically, the post-conviction
court, which adopted the State’s proposed findings, concluded as follows:
12. Based on [Daniels] unfettered insistence that he wanted a
trial, his statements to [Kellerman] that he was going to be
vindicated, and [Kellerman’s] testimony that he has no reason to
believe he did not present the plea offer just as he has as a matter
of course in all of his criminal cases, the Court does not find
[Daniels’] testimony to be credible that he was not informed of
the plea agreement.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PC-388 | August 15, 2019 Page 4 of 8
(App. Vol. 2 at 92-93). Daniels appeals the denial of his petition.
Decision
[8] At the outset, we note that Daniels proceeds pro se. A litigant who proceeds
pro se is held to the same rules of procedure that trained counsel is bound to
follow. Smith v. Donahue, 907 N.E.2d 553, 555 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans.
denied, cert. dismissed. One risk a litigant takes when he proceeds pro se is that he
will not know how to accomplish all the things an attorney would know how to
accomplish. Id. When a party elects to represent himself, there is no reason for
us to indulge in any benevolent presumption on his behalf or to waive any rule
for the orderly and proper conduct of his appeal. Foley v. Mannor, 844 N.E.2d
494, 502 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).
[9] Daniels argues that the post-conviction court erred when it determined that his
trial counsel was not ineffective.1 A defendant who has exhausted the direct
1
Daniels also argues that the post-conviction court erred when it adopted the State’s findings. However, the
Indiana Supreme Court has observed that “[i]t is not uncommon for a trial court to enter findings that are
verbatim reproductions of submissions of the prevailing party.” Prowell v. State, 741 N.E.2d 704, 708 (Ind.
2001). This is because “[t]he trial courts of this state are faced with an enormous volume of cases and few
have the law clerks and other resources that would be available in a more perfect world to help craft more
elegant trial court findings and legal reasoning.” Id. The need to keep the docket moving is a high priority
for our trial bench. Id. at 709. For these reasons, the practice of adopting a party’s proposed findings is not
prohibited. Id. Although we by no means encourage the wholesale adoption of a party’s findings and
conclusions, where, as here, the issues in the case turn more on the credibility of the witnesses and less on
the inferences to be drawn from the facts and the legal effect of essentially unchallenged testimony, we have
more confidence that the findings reflect the considered judgment of the trial court. See id. We find no error
in the post-conviction court’s adoption of the State’s findings and conclusions. In addition, Daniels’
argument that the post-conviction court “acted rashly and hastily when it denied [Daniels] petition in one
day” also fails. (Daniels’ Br. 15). Although the post-conviction court initially issued its findings and
conclusions the day after receiving the State’s findings and conclusions, the post-conviction court later
vacated that order to allow itself the opportunity to review Daniels’ proposed findings. The final order
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PC-388 | August 15, 2019 Page 5 of 8
appeal process may challenge the correctness of his conviction and sentence by
filing a post-conviction petition. Parish v. State, 838 N.E.2d 495, 499 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2005), trans. denied. Post-conviction procedures do not provide an
opportunity for a super appeal. Id. Rather, they create a narrow remedy for
subsequent collateral challenges to convictions that must be based on grounds
enumerated in the post-conviction rules. Id. Post-conviction proceedings are
civil proceedings, and a defendant must establish his claims by a preponderance
of the evidence. Id.[10] In reviewing the judgment of a post-conviction court, this Court considers only
the evidence and reasonable inferences supporting its judgment. Hall v. State,
849 N.E.2d 466, 468 (Ind. 2006). The post-conviction court is the sole judge of
the evidence and the credibility of witnesses. Id. at 468-69. To prevail on
appeal from the denial of post-conviction relief, the petitioner must show that
the evidence as a whole leads unerringly and unmistakably to a conclusion
opposite that reached by the post-conviction court. Id. at 469. Only where the
evidence is without conflict and leads to but one conclusion, and the post-
conviction court has reached the opposite conclusion, will the court’s findings
or conclusions be disturbed as being contrary to law. Id.
[11] Daniels argues that the post-conviction court erred when it determined that his
trial counsel was not ineffective. We review claims of ineffective assistance of
denying Daniels’ petition was issued more than six months later. Lastly, we agree with the State that
Daniels’ “claims of factual error in the adopted findings are either incorrect or immaterial.” (State’s Br. 14).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PC-388 | August 15, 2019 Page 6 of 8
trial counsel under the two-prong test established in Strickland v. Washington,
466 U.S. 668 (1984). The defendant must show that trial counsel’s performance
fell below an objective standard of reasonableness based on prevailing
professional norms and that there is a reasonable probability that, but for
counsel’s errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Moody
v. State, 749 N.E.2d 65, 67 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001), trans. denied.
[12] Counsel is afforded considerable discretion in choosing strategy and tactics, and
we will accord those decisions deference on appeal. Wrinkles v. State, 749
N.E.2d 1179, 1195 (Ind. 2001), cert. denied. Counsel’s performance is presumed
effective, and a defendant must offer strong and convincing evidence to
overcome this presumption. Smith v. State, 822 N.E.2d 193, 202 (Ind. Ct. App.
2005), trans. denied. We will not speculate as to what may or may not have been
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).
[13] Here, Daniels contends that he is entitled to post-conviction relief because his
trial counsel was ineffective for failing to communicate a plea offer to him.
Failure to communicate a plea offer is deficient performance that falls below an
objective standard of reasonableness. Woods v. State, 48 N.E.3d 374, 381 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2015) (citing Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134, 145 (2012)). Here,
however, the only evidence that supports Daniels’ claim is his self-serving
testimony that Kellerman did not communicate the plea offer to him. On the
other hand, Kellerman testified that although he did not specifically remember
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PC-388 | August 15, 2019 Page 7 of 8
showing the offer to Daniels, it was his common practice to present such offers
to his clients. He further had no reason to believe that he had not followed his
practice in this case. Kellerman also testified that he had had many
conversations with Daniels about the case, and Daniels had made it very clear
that he planned to maintain his innocence because he was not guilty of any
crimes. Even Daniels testified that it had been his intention throughout the case
to plead not guilty. Daniels has failed to carry his burden to show that the
evidence as a whole leads unerringly and unmistakably to a conclusion opposite
that reached by the post-conviction court. His argument simply asks this Court
to reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do. See Hall, 849 N.E.2d at 468.
[14] Affirmed.
Riley, J., and Bailey, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PC-388 | August 15, 2019 Page 8 of 8