Bobby D. Wine v. State of Indiana

FILED
May 27 2020, 7:48 am
CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
Amy. E. Karozos J.T. Whitehead
Public Defender of Indiana Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
Jonathan O. Chenoweth
Deputy Public Defender
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Bobby D. Wine, May 27, 2020
Appellant-Petitioner, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-PC-2268
v. Appeal from the Wabash Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Robert R.
Appellee-Respondent. McCallen, III, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
85C01-1902-PC-251
Altice, Judge.
Facts and Procedural History
Bobby Wine appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing
that both trial and appellate counsel were ineffective for not objecting to the
aggregate 720-day sentence that was imposed on four counts of criminal
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-PC-2268 | May 27, 2020 Page 1 of 28
contempt. The State presents an issue of first impression on cross-appeal,
claiming that this cause must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
because the post-conviction rules do not apply to criminal contempt
adjudications.
We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
On July 30, 2012, Wine was charged with dealing in a controlled substance, a
class B felony and was subsequently convicted of that offense following a three-
day jury trial. During the trial, the trial court specifically found Wine in direct
criminal contempt on five separate occasions and sentenced him to 180 days on
each count for an aggregate term of 900 days. 1 Wine was repeatedly disruptive
throughout the course of the trial, and the trial court warned Wine after the first
episode that “for each and every contempt, [Wine] will suffer 180 days in the
Wabash County Jail. Each and every one, consecutive.” Transcript Vol. I at 4.
The first instance of contempt occurred on day one of the trial, the second and
third happened on day two, and the next episodes occurred on the third day of
trial. Wine had to be removed from the courtroom on several occasions
because of his disrespectful and loud sarcastic remarks to the court, arguing
with the trial judge, constantly complaining in open court about trial counsel’s
1
Although the trial court noted that Wine was in contempt on at least fifteen separate occasions, it elected to
issue findings and impose sanctions on only five of those instances.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-PC-2268 | May 27, 2020 Page 2 of 28
alleged deficient representation, and making remarks to the spectators in the
courtroom. Following these episodes, the trial court entered the following
order:
[D]uring the questioning of a witness, the Defendant objected.
The court again removed the jury and again advised the
Defendant he was to speak only through counsel. The
Defendant remained combative and disrespectful. He was then
informed he was in contempt (Count I). The Defendant then
baited the court to make additional findings of direct contempt
on at least 3 additional occasions, which the court did (Counts II,
III & IV). The Defendant was so informed. At that time, he
turned his back to the court and looked at the gallery where
various spectators were seated. He then said to someone “what’s
so funny” or words to that effect. He was then found in
contempt, again (Count V).
The conduct of the Defendant, as recited above, is as heinous as
the court has ever witnessed of a criminal defendant. His actions
were clearly motivated to undermine these proceedings and to
attempt to cause a mistrial.
Appellant’s Appendix at 4-5. Wine directly appealed the contempt findings to this
court, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and the procedures that the
trial court followed in finding him in contempt. Wine also claimed that his
sentence was “inappropriate, manifestly unreasonable, or unreasonable.” Wine
v. State, No. 85A02-1307-CR-610, slip op. at 13 (Ind. Ct. App. Feb. 20, 2014).
We affirmed in part and reversed in part, concluding that the record supported
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-PC-2268 | May 27, 2020 Page 3 of 28
four rather than five episodes of contempt. Slip op. at 8. 2 While we also
determined that the sentence of 180 days on each contempt finding was proper,
we reduced the aggregate sentence to 720 days on the four counts. Id. at 11-12.
In a separate appeal, Wine appealed his conviction on the underlying drug
dealing charge, claiming that he received the ineffective assistance of trial
counsel, 3 that the case should have been dismissed, and that the trial court
improperly admitted a statement into evidence that he had made prior to trial.
We affirmed Wine’s conviction in all respects. See Wine v. State, No. 85A05-
1307-CR-382 (Ind. Ct. App. March 27, 2014).
Thereafter, on June 6, 2019, Wine filed an amended petition for post-conviction
relief, claiming that his trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the
length of the sentence for contempt because the instances of contempt were part
of a single episode. Wine claimed that the aggregate sentence for criminal
contempt could not lawfully exceed 180 days pursuant to this court’s opinion in
Mockbee v. State, 80 N.E.3d 917, 922-923 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017), because he did
not waive his right to a jury trial. Wine also claimed that appellate counsel was
ineffective for the same reasons.
2
We determined that the record supported findings that Wine was in contempt on only four occasions
because the trial court did not specify precisely what Wine did that might have supported a fifth count. Slip
op. at 8.
3
Wine claimed that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to: 1) spend sufficient time with him when
preparing for trial; 2) advise him of a plea agreement that the State had offered; and 3) file a motion to
dismiss the charges prior to trial.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-PC-2268 | May 27, 2020 Page 4 of 28
Following a July 15, 2019 hearing on Wine’s petition, the post-conviction court
denied Wine’s request for relief and entered the following order:
1. Wine was previously found to be in direct criminal contempt of
Court (Counts I, II, III, & V) following remand from the Indiana
Court of Appeals and its decision that Count IV be vacated. The
Court of Appeals did not otherwise find fault with the remaining
four counts of contempt.
2. The Defendant was sentenced to 180 days of incarceration at the Wabash
County Jail for each separate contempt as a sanction for his behaviors, to
be served consecutively. As a result, the Defendant received a total
sentence of 720 days.
3. These consecutive sentences arose from individual and distinct acts of
contemptuous behavior and not a single contemptuous episode. Further,
even if they had, Mockbee v. State, 80 N.E.3d 917 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) had
not been decided. The Court does not find that either trial or appellate
counsel performed deficiently or that the result would or should have
been different.
Appendix Vol. II at 78. Wine now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
I. Standard of Review
Our standard of review in post-conviction proceedings is well-settled:
[P]ost-conviction proceedings do not grant a petitioner a ‘super-
appeal’ but are limited to those issues available under the Indiana
Post-Conviction Rules. Post-conviction proceedings are civil in
nature, and petitioners bear the burden of proving their grounds for
relief by a preponderance of the evidence. Ind. Post-Conviction
Rule 1(5). A petitioner who appeals the denial of PCR faces a
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-PC-2268 | May 27, 2020 Page 5 of 28
rigorous standard of review, as the reviewing court may consider
only the evidence and the reasonable inferences supporting the
judgment of the post-conviction court. The appellate court must
accept the post-conviction court’s findings of fact and may reverse
only if the findings are clearly erroneous. If a PCR petitioner was
denied relief, he or she must show that the evidence as a whole leads
unerringly and unmistakably to an opposite conclusion than that
reached by the post-conviction court.
Jent v. State, 120 N.E.3d 290, 92-93 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (quoting Shepherd v.
State, 924 N.E.2d 1274, 1280 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (internal citations omitted),
trans. denied.
II. The State’s Cross-Claim
Before proceeding to the merits of Wine’s claims, we first address the State’s
contention on cross-appeal that we are required to dismiss this cause for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction because the post-conviction rules do not apply to
criminal contempt adjudications. The State asserts that because contempt is not
a statutorily-defined criminal offense, Wine may not seek a remedy by way of
post-conviction relief.
Our post-conviction relief rules provide that “(a) [a]ny person who has been
convicted of, or sentenced for, a crime by a court of this state, and who claims: (3)
that the sentence exceeds the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise
erroneous . . . may institute at any time a proceeding under this Rule to secure
relief.” Ind. Post-Conviction Rule 1(1)(a) (emphasis added). We note that any
act that manifests a disrespect and defiance of a court may constitute direct
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-PC-2268 | May 27, 2020 Page 6 of 28
criminal contempt. Hopping v. State, 637 N.E.2d 1294, 1297 (Ind. 1994);
Mockbee, 80 N.E.3d at 920. Direct criminal contempt citations are available
where “the court has firsthand and immediate knowledge of acts demonstrating
a clear disregard for its authority which threaten to undermine the integrity of
the judicial process and impede the performance of court work.” Mockbee, 80
N.E.3d at 920 (quoting Hopping, 637 N.E.2d at 1297). The power of Indiana
courts to summarily punish for direct criminal contempt, while specified by
statute, 4 rests upon the common law. It is inherent in the courts. Hopping, 637
N.E.2d at 1296.
In support of the contention that this cause must be dismissed for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction, the State directs us to T.T. v. State, 439 N.E.2d 655 (Ind. Ct.
App. 1982), where the respondent delinquent child appealed to this court
following an adjudication that he had committed criminal contempt for
disobeying a court order to attend school. This court determined that T.T. was
wrongly adjudicated a delinquent child because “all crimes are statutory, and
all who are accused of a crime are entitled to a trial by jury, and there can be no
conviction of crime except by a jury unless a jury was waived. Contempt of
court is not a crime.” Id. at 657 (citing Niemeyer et al. v. McCarty et al., 51
N.E.2d 365, 367 (Ind. 1943)). In light of this pronouncement, the State posits
4
Our direct contempt statute provides in relevant part that “(a) [e]very person who disturbs the business and
proceedings of a court: (1) by creating any noise or confusion; (2) in a court of record; and (3) while the court
is open and engaged in the transaction of business is considered guilty of direct contempt of court.” Ind.
Code § 34-47-2-1.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-PC-2268 | May 27, 2020 Page 7 of 28
that Wine may not avail himself of post-conviction remedies because those
rules are necessarily limited to persons who have been convicted of, or
sentenced for, a criminal offense defined by statute.
While the State correctly observes that T.T. stands for the proposition that
criminal contempt was not “an offense” under the Juvenile Code, that case was
an appeal from the denial of a petition for post-conviction relief. Seemingly, if
contempt is not “a crime” for purposes of our post-conviction rules, it stands to
reason that T.T.’s appeal would have been dismissed, inasmuch as this court is
“required to consider” subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte, even when the
parties do not. Albright v. Pyle, 637 N.E.2d 1360, 1363 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994).
That the merits of T.T.’s appeal were considered and not dismissed supports
the notion that a collateral challenge of a criminal contempt finding may be
pursued under the post-conviction rules—regardless of what criminal contempt
is or was under the Juvenile Code.
We further note that criminal contempt, as its name implies, is “punitive in
nature.” McCollum v. FSSA, 82 N.E.3d 368, 375 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). One
who is subject to criminal contempt is afforded many of the same constitutional
safeguards that a defendant in a criminal trial enjoys because of the penalties
that may be imposed. See id. As the United States Supreme Court observed in
Bloom v. Illinois:
[C]riminal contempt is a crime in every fundamental respect . . . .
[I]n terms of those considerations which make the right to jury
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-PC-2268 | May 27, 2020 Page 8 of 28
trial fundamental in criminal cases, there is no substantial
difference between serious contempts and other serious crimes.
Criminal contempt is a crime in the ordinary sense; it is a
violation of the law, a public wrong which is punishable by fine
or imprisonment or both. In the words of Mr. Justice Holmes:
“‘These contempts are infractions of the law, visited with
punishment as such. If such acts are not criminal, we are in error
as to the most fundamental characteristic of crimes as that word
has been understood in English speech.’” Gompers v. United
States, 233 U. S. 604, 610 (1914).
Criminally contemptuous conduct may violate other provisions
of the criminal law; but even when this is not the case convictions
for criminal contempt are indistinguishable from ordinary criminal
convictions, for their impact on the individual defendant is the same.
Indeed, the role of criminal contempt and that of many ordinary
criminal laws seem identical—protection of the institutions of
our government and enforcement of their mandates.
391 U.S. 194, 201-02 (1968) (citation and some quotation marks omitted)
(emphasis added).
In addition to the above, I.C. § 34-47-2-5(a) provides that if a “defendant is
found guilty of direct contempt . . . the defendant has the right to appeal the
judgment of the court.” (Emphasis added). And pursuant to I.C. §34-47-2-5(e),
a defendant has the right to move the trial court to reconsider its opinion on the
finding of contempt and if that motion is overruled, “the defendant may appeal as
in other criminal actions.” (Emphasis added).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-PC-2268 | May 27, 2020 Page 9 of 28
Finally, we observe that unlike adjudications for criminal contempt, a finding of
civil contempt 5 can be collaterally attacked by a motion for relief of judgment
pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 60(B). See Bello v. Bello, 102 N.E.3d 891, 895
(Ind. Ct. App. 2018). Because the consequences of criminal contempt are
punitive in nature, those actions may not be collaterally attacked under the trial
rules because those rules apply only to “suits of a civil nature[.]” Ind. Trial
Rule 1. Thus, a petition for post-conviction relief is a criminal contemnor’s
only opportunity to collaterally challenge such an adjudication. See Woods v.
State, 701 N.E.2d 1208, 1219 (Ind. 1998) (recognizing that a post-conviction
proceeding is the “preferred forum” in which to raise a claim of ineffective
assistance of trial counsel, and the only forum in which to raise a claim of
ineffective assistance of appellate counsel). For all the reasons above, we
decline to dismiss Wine’s appeal.
III. Wine’s Claims
A. Ineffective Assistance of Trial Counsel
Wine argues that he is entitled to post-conviction relief because his trial counsel
was ineffective for failing to object to the length of the sentence that was
5
A civil contempt is a violation of a court order resulting in a proceeding for the benefit of the aggrieved
party. Mitchell v. Stevenson, 677 N.E.2d 551, 558-59 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997), trans. denied. The objective of a civil
contempt proceeding is not to punish, but to coerce action for the benefit of the aggrieved party. McCollum,
82 N.E.3d at 375. Imprisonment is a permissible sanction for an act of civil contempt, but “if the judgment
seeks to coerce the defendant into doing an affirmative act by confinement in jail, it must provide that the
imprisonment cease as soon as the act is done, so that it gives the defendant the key of his prison in his own
pocket.” D.W. v. State, 673 N.E.2d 509, 512 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996), trans. denied.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-PC-2268 | May 27, 2020 Page 10 of 28
imposed. Wine contends that the aggregate 720-day sentence cannot stand
because he did not waive his right to a jury trial and, therefore, could not be
sentenced to more than 180 days of incarceration.
In ineffective assistance of counsel cases, reversal is appropriate where a
defendant shows both that counsel’s performance fell below an objective
standard of reasonableness and that said deficient performance so prejudiced
the defendant as to deprive him of a fair trial. Pennycuff v. State, 745 N.E.2d
804, 811 (Ind. 2001) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 697 (1984)).
There is a strong presumption that counsel rendered adequate assistance and
made all significant decisions in the exercise of reasonable professional
judgment. Id. Judicial scrutiny of counsel’s performance is highly deferential
and should not be exercised through the distortions of hindsight. Id. Isolated
poor strategy, inexperience, or bad tactics do not necessarily amount to
ineffectiveness of counsel. Id. When considering ineffectiveness assistance of
counsel claims, we “judge the reasonableness of counsel’s challenged conduct
on the facts of the particular case, viewed as of the time of counsel’s conduct.”
Id. (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690). A claim that trial counsel was ineffective
may be disposed of on the prejudice inquiry alone. Vermillion v. State, 719
N.E.2d 1201, 1208 (Ind. 1999); Williams v. State, 706 N.E.2d 149, 154 (Ind.
1999).
In addressing Wine’s contentions, we initially observe that the Sixth
Amendment to the United States Constitution, applied to the States through the
Fourteenth Amendment, guarantees the right to a jury trial in criminal cases.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-PC-2268 | May 27, 2020 Page 11 of 28
Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 149 (1968). On the other hand, petty
offenses, wherein the penalty “imposed does not exceed six months or a longer
penalty has not been expressly authorized by statute,” may be tried without a
jury. Taylor v. Hayes, 418 U.S. 488, 495 (1974). “[I]n the absence of legislative
authorization of serious penalties for contempt, a State may choose to try any
contempt without a jury if it determines not to impose a sentence longer than
six months.” Id. at 496. Sentences exceeding six months may not be imposed
absent a jury trial or waiver thereof. Holly v. State, 681 N.E.2d 1176, 1177-78
(Ind. Ct. App. 1997).
Wine directs us to Codispoti v. Pennsylvania, 418 U.S. 506 (1974) in support of
his contention that the aggregate sentence for contempt charges cannot exceed
180 days. In Codispoti, the defendant was tried before a judge for contemptuous
conduct that occurred during the course of a criminal trial that had been tried in
a different court. Id. at 508. The judge in the contempt proceedings, who
denied Codispoti’s request for a jury trial, adjudged Codispoti guilty of seven
instances of contempt and imposed an aggregate sentence of three years and
three months. Thus, the issue before the Supreme Court was whether Codispoti
was entitled to a jury trial because the aggregate sentence for contempt
exceeded 180 days. Id. 512-13.
Prior to addressing the merits of Codispoti’s claim, the Court commented on a
trial court’s need to maintain order and a deliberative atmosphere in the
courtroom:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-PC-2268 | May 27, 2020 Page 12 of 28
‘[A] criminal trial, in the constitutional sense, cannot take place
where the courtroom is a bedlam. . . . A courtroom is a hallowed
place where trials must proceed with dignity. . . .’ Illinois v. Allen,
397 U.S. 337, 351 (1970) (separate opinion of Douglas, J.).
...
‘To allow the disruptive activities of a defendant . . . to prevent
his trial is to allow him to profit from his own wrong. The
Constitution would protect none of us if it prevented the courts
from acting to preserve the very processes that the Constitution
itself prescribes.’ Illinois v. Allen, supra, at 350; 90 S.Ct. at 1064(Brennan, J., concurring).
Id. at 514 (quoting N. Dorsen & L. Friedman, Disorder in the Court: Report of
the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Special Committee on
Courtroom Conduct 10-23 (1973); Burger, The Necessity for Civility, 52 F.R.
D. 211, 214-15 (1971)).
Similarly, this court recognized in Cardwell v. State that a trial judge has the
responsibility to control the proceedings by taking responsible steps to insure
proper order and discipline. 516 N.E.2d 1083, 1085 (Ind. Ct. App. 1987), trans.
denied. And in Illinois v. Allen, the United States Supreme Court observed that
It is essential to the proper administration of criminal justice that
dignity, order, and decorum be the hallmarks of all court
proceedings in our country. The flagrant disregard in the
courtroom of elementary standards of proper conduct should not
and cannot be tolerated. We believe trial judges confronted with
disruptive, contumacious, stubbornly defiant defendants must be
given sufficient discretion to meet the circumstances of each case.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-PC-2268 | May 27, 2020 Page 13 of 28
397 U.S. 337, 343-44 (1970).
The majority then observed in Codispoti that if “each contempt is dealt with as a
discrete and separate matter at a different point during the trial,” the defendant
has no right to a jury; for each contempt, he can be sentenced to consecutive
six-month terms. Codispoti, 418 U.S. at 515; see also Mayberry v. Pennsylvania,
400 U.S. 455, 463 (1971). The Codispoti Court did note that there are
circumstances where a “contemnor may be punished by a term of no more than
six months.” Codispoti, 418 U.S. at 514. However, a judge does not exhaust the
“power to convict and punish summarily whenever the punishment imposed for
separate contemptuous acts during trial exceeds six months.” Id.The Codispoti Court explained that
[w]hen the trial judge . . . postpones until after trial the final
conviction and punishment of the accused or his lawyer for
several or many acts of contempt committed during the trial,
there is no overriding necessity for instant action to preserve
order and no justification for dispensing with the ordinary
rudiments of due process. Mayberry v. Pennsylvania, supra, at 463-
64; Groppi v. Leslie, 404 U.S. 496, 499-507, Taylor v. Hayes, 418
U.S., at 497. Moreover, it is normally the trial judge who, in
retrospect, determines which and how many acts of contempt the
citation will cover. It is also he or, as is the case here, another
judge who will determine guilt or innocence absent a jury, who
will impose the sentences and who will determine whether they
will run consecutively or concurrently. In the context of the post-
verdict adjudication of various acts of contempt, it appears to us
that there is posed the very likelihood of arbitrary action that the
requirement of jury trial was intended to avoid or alleviate. Cf.
ibid.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-PC-2268 | May 27, 2020 Page 14 of 28
Id. at 515. As a result of the above, the Court recognized that multiple acts of
contempt are not considered “separate offenses” if they “arose from a single
trial, were charged by a single judge, and were tried in a single proceeding.” Id.
at 517. If there is but a single act or episode of contempt, the maximum
aggregate sentence can be no longer than six months without a jury trial or the
defendant’s waiver thereof. See id.Notwithstanding Wine’s reliance on Codispoti, he has failed to demonstrate that
the trial court here would have been compelled to reduce the length of his
sentence, had trial counsel objected. In Codispoti, the Court vacated the
aggregate sentence that exceeded 180 days, reasoning that “[i]n the context of
the post-verdict adjudication of various acts of contempt, . . . there is . . . the very
likelihood of arbitrary action that the requirement of jury trial was intended to
avoid or alleviate.” Id. at 515 (emphasis added).
Unlike Codispoti, there was no “post-verdict” adjudication of Wine’s
contemptuous episodes. Rather, the trial court imposed a sentence of 180 days
on each count immediately after determining that Wine had committed a
particular contemptuous act. As a result, the rule set forth in Codispoti is not
instructive here, and Wine has failed to show that an objection to the length of
his sentence on this basis would have been sustained.
Wine further contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object
to the length of his sentence in light of this court’s decisions in Mockbee and
Fearman v. State, 89 N.E.3d 435 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). First, we note that both
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-PC-2268 | May 27, 2020 Page 15 of 28
cases were decided after Wine’s direct appeal was decided. As a result, trial
counsel cannot be said to have been ineffective for failing to challenge Wine’s
sentence on this basis. See Fisher v. State, 810 N.E.2d 674, 679 (Ind. 2004)
(holding that counsel cannot be held ineffective for failing to anticipate or
effectuate a change in existing law) (citing Trueblood v. State, 715 N.E.2d 1242,
1258 (Ind. 1999)); see also Timberlake v. State, 753 N.E.2d 591, 605 (Ind. 2001)
(counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise an issue at a particular stage of
the proceedings when there was no appellate authority establishing the point at
which the issue should be presented).
Moreover, we cannot say that there was a reasonable probability that the trial
court would have vacated all but 180 days of the sentence had Wine’s trial
counsel raised the issue. More specifically, the rule announced in Mockbee does
not control the outcome here. There, the trial court conducted a brief hearing
on two of the defendant’s pending motions. Throughout the hearing, Mockbee
taunted opposing counsel, “constantly interrupt[ed] the Court on a continuing
basis,” and directed profanity toward the judge. 80 N.E.3d at 919, 921.
Mockbee also made “glaring, smirking remarks” and “face gestures to the
court” during the hearing. Id. at 919. As Mockbee’s behavior continued, the
trial court had him removed from the courtroom, observing that it was “not
going to subject the parties or a jury to this kind of behavior. . . .” Id. The trial
court subsequently entered its order and
‘found [Mockbee] in contempt and ordered a sentence of one
hundred and eighty (180) days and ordered an additional one
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-PC-2268 | May 27, 2020 Page 16 of 28
hundred and eighty (180) days for continued actions, words, and
disruptive behavior.’ (App. Vol. 2 at 47). The trial court ordered
‘two separate sentences’ of six months ‘based upon defendant’s
failure to cease his disruptive behavior after the imposition of the
first contempt sentence.’ (App. Vol. 2 at 49).
Id. at 920.
On appeal, a panel of this court determined that the defendant’s behavior
amounted to a single episode for the purposes of sentencing because it:
occurred within a single proceeding, lasted a relatively short
period of time, was not interrupted by another proceeding, and
flowed from a single criminal intent—to disrespect and disrupt
the administration of justice. Even though [the defendant]
continued to behave in a contemptuous manner after the initial
contempt citation, his continuing behavior was in response to the
trial court’s initial contempt citation and flowed from the same
criminal objective.
Id. at 922. The Mockbee Court further explained that “where, as here, multiple
acts of contempt form a single contemptuous episode, . . . a single punishment
of not more than six months may be imposed, without a jury trial.” Id.; see also
Fearman, 89 N.E.3d at 437 (holding that the defendant’s disrespectful comments
and remarks at a brief sentencing hearing amounted to only one episode of
contempt because, as were the circumstances in Mockbee, the contemptuous
behavior occurred at a single proceeding, lasted only a short time, and flowed
from the sole intent to disrupt the proceedings). Notwithstanding this result,
the Mockbee Court went on to observe that
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-PC-2268 | May 27, 2020 Page 17 of 28
determining whether multiple acts of contemptuous behavior
forms a single contemptuous episode is a fact sensitive
determination. We can imagine scenarios within a single hearing that
might justify multiple contempt citations. For example, a litigant
whose outburst receives a contempt citation might be properly
cited again after a period of calm behavior within the same
proceeding. See Smith v. State, 382 Md. 329, 855 A.2d 339 (Md.
2004) (three acts of contempt were separate and discrete
supporting three convictions).
80 N.E.3d at 922 (emphasis added).
Under the circumstances here, it is apparent that the trial court dealt with each
instance of Wine’s contemptuous behavior as a separate and discrete matter at
different points, and every day, during the course of the three-day jury trial.
Although the trial court chose to charge Wine with only five counts of criminal
contempt, the trial court had cited Wine for contempt “at least fifteen times”
and “had [him] removed from the courtroom several times.” Wine, slip op. at
6. Moreover, there were other occasions during the trial where the judge
overlooked Wine’s behavior that otherwise might have constituted contempt-
worthy comments and remarks. The record shows that there were, in fact,
sufficient breaks after each disruption. After each finding of contempt, the trial
judge immediately steered from the interruption back to the trial proceedings.
The record demonstrates that Wine’s remarks and comments amounted to
separate contemptuous incidents.
In sum, we do not find Wine’s reliance on Codispoti or Mockbee controlling in
these circumstances. Mockbee had not been decided at the time of Wine’s direct
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-PC-2268 | May 27, 2020 Page 18 of 28
appeal, and the record supports the conclusion that Wine committed separate
acts of criminal contempt over the course of his three-day jury trial. For these
reasons, Wine has failed to show that an objection to the 720-day aggregate
sentence on this basis would have been sustained. As a result, the post-
conviction court properly concluded that Wine was not denied the effective
assistance of trial counsel.
B. Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel
Wine also claims that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise
the sentencing issue discussed above on direct appeal. Wine advances the same
arguments about appellate counsel as he does with respect to trial counsel.
The standard of review for a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel
is the same as that for trial counsel. Massey v. State, 955 N.E.2d 247, 257 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2011) (citing Bieghler v. State, 690 N.E.2d 188, 192 (Ind. 1997)). The
defendant must show that counsel’s performance was deficient in that counsel’s
representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that but
for appellate counsel’s deficient performance, there is a reasonable probability
that the result of the appeal would have been different. Id. at 257-58 (citing
Overstreet v. State, 877 N.E.2d 144, 165 (Ind. 2007)). Our Supreme Court has
recognized three categories of alleged appellate counsel ineffectiveness: (1)
denying access to an appeal; (2) failing to raise an issue on appeal; and (3)
failing to present an issue completely and effectively. Bieghler, 690 N.E.2d at
193-95. As with claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, the contention
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-PC-2268 | May 27, 2020 Page 19 of 28
that appellate counsel was ineffective may first be disposed of on the prejudice
inquiry alone. Vermillion, 719 N.E.2d at 1208; Williams, 706 N.E.2d at 154.
We previously addressed the issue as to “whether the sentence for contempt
findings was proper” in Wine’s direct appeal. Id. at 1-2. Specifically, we
concluded that Wine’s sentences, for four instances of contempt, were not
inappropriate, not manifestly unreasonable, and not unreasonable. Id. at 6.
Thus, Wine’s challenge at this juncture best fits category (3) above, namely
failing to present an issue completely and effectively.
Wine’s argument regarding the ineffective assistance of appellate counsel fails
for the same reason that Wine’s assertion of ineffective assistance of trial
counsel fails. The entirety of Wine’s claim, citing Codispoti, rests on the
assertion that his contempt of court did not involve multiple, separate examples
of contempt and therefore, the aggregate sentence could not exceed 180 days
because he did not waive his right to a jury trial. See Appellant’s Brief at 12, 18.
The circumstances here involved multiple instances of contempt and not one
single act, thus removing the sentencing limits or proscriptions described by
Codispoti and Mockbee. Moreover, Wine acknowledges that Mockbee had not yet
been decided at the time of his direct appeal. Appellate counsel cannot be
ineffective for not arguing case law that does not yet exist. See Timberlake, 753
N.E.2d at 605. For these reasons, Wine’s claim that his appellate counsel was
ineffective fails.
Judgment affirmed.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-PC-2268 | May 27, 2020 Page 20 of 28
Tavitas, J., concurs.
May, J., concurs in result with separate opinion.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-PC-2268 | May 27, 2020 Page 21 of 28
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Bobby D. Wine,
Appellant-Petitioner, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-PC-2268
v.
State of Indiana,
Appellee-Plaintiff
May, Judge, concurring in result.
I respectfully concur in result but write separately to address the State’s
argument that Wine’s appeal should be dismissed and to emphasize the
importance that the procedural posture of the case played in determining my
vote.
1. Applicability of Indiana Post-Conviction Rules
I agree with Judge Altice that Wine’s appeal should not be dismissed. In T.T. v.
State, we held criminal contempt did not constitute a criminal offense if
committed by an adult, and therefore the trial court erred in adjudicating T.T.
delinquent and committing her to the Indiana Department of Correction under
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-PC-2268 | May 27, 2020 Page 22 of 28
the portion of the delinquency statute that required finding the juvenile
committed an act that would be a criminal offense if committed by an adult.
439 N.E.2d 655, 657 (Ind. Ct. App. 1982). The State contends, based on T.T.,
that if criminal contempt does not constitute a criminal offense, then a person
may not collaterally attack a criminal contempt finding via a petition for
postconviction relief because the Indiana Post-Conviction Rules apply only to
persons convicted of or sentenced for a crime. I believe the State’s argument
construes our holding in T.T. too broadly.
As Judge Altice notes, criminal contempt is meant to be punitive. Slip op. at *8.
A person charged with contempt is entitled to certain constitutional safeguards
because of the potential penalties, including loss of liberty. Id. at *8-*9. Given
that a post-conviction proceeding is the “preferred forum” for deciding claims
of ineffective assistance of counsel, I agree with Judge Altice that we should
allow a person found in criminal contempt to collaterally challenge the
contempt finding by filing a petition for postconviction relief. Id. at *10 (quoting
Woods v. State, 701 N.E.2d 1208, 1219 (Ind. 1998)).
2. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
The trial court sanctioned Wine for four contemptuous acts that occurred
within five pages of transcript. Much to the trial court’s credit, the judge
patiently and repeatedly explained to Wine that he was to remain quiet during
trial and to allow his attorney to address the court on his behalf. Nevertheless,
during the State’s direct examination of a witness, Wine stated, “Your Honor,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-PC-2268 | May 27, 2020 Page 23 of 28
at this time I would like to object.” (Prior Case Tr. Vol. II at 21.) The trial court
excused the jury and stated to Wine, “You can’t follow a simple admonition.
You are now in contempt—one hundred and eighty days that doesn’t get good
time credit.” (Id. at 22.) The trial court found Wine in contempt additional
times during the following exchange:
Court: Stop. Your attorney has a voice of his own. You do not
speak during these proceedings. I’m telling you for the last time
you don’t say anything while this trial is going on unless it’s a
response to a question from me, or the State, or your attorney.
Nothing. Not hello, goodbye, whatever. You hear me? Do you
hear me?
Wine: I hear you. I don’t understand you.
Court: You don’t understand when I tell you to not speak unless
you’re - -
Wine: Your Honor - -
Court: - - requested by me?
Wine: Your Honor - -
Court: That’s it. That’s it. One hundred and eighty days. Now
I’m gonna bring the jury back in.
Wine: Well, he better start doing his job.
Court: (Inaudible). Stop talking.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-PC-2268 | May 27, 2020 Page 24 of 28
Wine: Well - -
Court: That it. That’s two, one hundred and eighty days.
Wine: Give me a third one.
Court: How about three hundred and sixty? Okay - -
(Id. at 23.) The trial court again instructed Wine to remain quiet unless asked a
question by the court, the prosecutor, or his attorney. Before the judge brought
the jury back into the courtroom, Wine turned to someone in the gallery and
said, “All right. Is something funny?” (Id. at 25.) The trial court then held
Wine in contempt again.
Clearly, Wine was not dissuaded from continuing his disrespectful behavior
after being held in contempt and sanctioned. At that point, the court would
have best served the objective of maintaining order by removing Wine from the
courtroom. See Wilson v. State, 30 N.E.3d 1264, 1270-71 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015)
(holding trial court did not abuse its discretion by removing defendant from trial
when defendant continued to act disrespectfully after being held in contempt),
trans. denied. If we were evaluating this case on direct appeal, I would vote to
remand the case. In that situation, the trial court could choose to modify
Wine’s sentence to 180 days on the grounds that because the contempt findings
and imposition of sanctions occurred in such quick succession, they amount to
only one episode of contempt. See Fearman v. State, 89 N.E.3d 435, 437 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2017) (holding cursing and threatening behavior that “occurred during a
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-PC-2268 | May 27, 2020 Page 25 of 28
single proceeding, lasted a short period of time, was not interrupted by any
other proceeding and flowed from [defendant’s] single intent to disrupt the
court proceedings” constituted a single, contemptuous episode); see also Mockbee
v. State, 80 N.E.3d 917, 923 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (holding defendant serve one
six-month sentence for contempt consecutive to his sentences for his criminal
convictions), trans. denied. Or, the trial court could conduct a jury trial on the
multiple charges of contempt, and if the jury found Wine guilty, the court could
impose a sentence greater than six months. See Codispoti v. Pennsylvania, 418
U.S. 506, 517 (Ind. 1974) (holding in the context of a post-verdict adjudication
for contempt, an alleged contemnor is entitled to a jury trial if the sentence for
contempt is to exceed six months).
However, this case is not before us on a direct appeal. Four of the trial court’s
contempt findings and the 180-day sentences for each finding were affirmed on
direct appeal. Wine v. State, No. 85A02-1307-CR-610, 2014 WL 684151 (Ind.
Ct. App. Feb. 20, 2014). Wine’s appeal in the case at bar follows the denial of
his petition for post-conviction relief on the basis that both his trial counsel and
his appellate counsel were ineffective for not arguing that Wine was entitled to
a jury trial. Precedent dictates that we do not declare counsel ineffective for not
making a novel argument.
For example, in Smylie v. State, our Indiana Supreme Court explained that
neither a trial lawyer nor an appellate lawyer would be considered ineffective
for failing to argue a defendant’s sentence was unconstitutional pursuant to a
rule later announced in a United States Supreme Court decision. 823 N.E.2d
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-PC-2268 | May 27, 2020 Page 26 of 28
679, 690 (Ind. 2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 976 (2005). To impose such a duty
would “drastically alter the burden imposed on counsel as to what constitutes
effective assistance to their clients.” Id. We judge an attorney’s performance
based on the case law at the time and will not penalize an attorney for not
anticipating changes in the law. Wieland v. State, 848 N.E.2d 679, 683 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2006), reh’g denied, trans. denied, cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1038 (2006).
Wine’s postconviction counsel draws parallels between his case and the United
States Supreme Court’s opinion in Codispoti. However, as Judge Altice explains,
“Unlike Codispoti, there was no ‘post-verdict’ adjudication of Wine’s
contemptuous episodes. Rather, the trial court imposed a sentence of 180 days
on each count immediately after determining that Wine had committed a
particular contemptuous act.” Slip op. at *15. Justice White, writing for the
plurality in Part II of Codispoti, recognized “[t]here are recurring situations
where the trial judge, to maintain order in the courtroom and the integrity of
the trial process in the face of an actual obstruction of justice convicts and
sentences the accused or the attorneys for either side for various acts of
contempt as they occur.” 418 U.S. at 513 (internal citations and quotation
marks omitted). That is what happened in Wine’s case. The court summarily
convicted and sentenced Wine for each act of contempt as it occurred.
Justice Marshall did not join Part II of Justice White’s opinion in Codispoti. He
stated in his concurring opinion:
Where the contemptuous acts arose out of a single course of
conduct by the defendant, I think that they should be treated as a
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-PC-2268 | May 27, 2020 Page 27 of 28
single serious offense for which the Sixth Amendment requires a
jury trial, whether the judge seeks to use his summary contempt
power in individual instances during trial or tries the contempts
together at the end of trial.
Id. at 519-20. Justice Marshall’s concurrence was prescient because Indiana law
has since evolved to conform with his beliefs regarding contempt. However,
Wine’s attorneys were not ineffective for failing to argue the court should adopt
the position stated in Justice Marshall’s concurrence, but unsupported by the
rest of the Court, because the Indiana law subsequent to Codisponti was not in
existence at the time of Wine’s trial. See Gann v. State, 550 N.E.2d 73, 75 (Ind.
1990) (holding petitioner’s trial counsel was not ineffective when “he did not
make an objection to an instruction which had not yet been held to be reversible
error”).
I vote to affirm the denial of Wine’s petition for postconviction relief because
there was not any Indiana case law available at the time of Wine’s trial or his
direct appeal to indicate Wine was entitled to a jury trial before the court
imposed sentences for contempt which totaled over 180-days. I recognize
Justice Marshall advocated for such a result in Codispoti. Nonetheless, I will not
vote to hold that Wine’s attorneys were ineffective for failing to advance such
an argument.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-PC-2268 | May 27, 2020 Page 28 of 28