972 N.E.2d 949
Ind. Ct. App.2012Background
- Schmid appeals the denial of her post-conviction relief petition from convictions for murder and related felonies.
- The post-conviction court denied relief on August 18, 2011 after a hearing.
- Schmid has a long history of psychological problems, including auditory/visual hallucinations at times during the events and trial.
- The defense at trial was insanity; the trial court later found Schmid competent to stand trial.
- Schmid alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel on four grounds: (a) failure to raise Justified Reasonable Force, (b) failure to seek a second competency hearing, (c) failure to communicate a plea offer, and (d) failure to call Schmid to testify.
- The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed, applying the Strickland two-prong standard for ineffective assistance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was trial counsel ineffective for not raising Justified Reasonable Force? | Schmid argues defense counsel should have pursued the Justified Reasonable Force defense. | Schmid's trial team chose not to pursue it as a strategic decision given the evidence. | No merit; defense was strategic and unsupported by the facts. |
| Was a second competency hearing required after trial-competency is found? | Schmid contends due process requires another competency hearing after being found competent. | No need; competency was determined and there was no showing the outcome would differ with another hearing. | No error; no demonstrated prejudice or need for a second competency hearing. |
| Did counsel's failure to communicate a plea offer amount to ineffective assistance? | Schmid claims counsel failed to convey a plea offer as required by law. | There was no firm, written offer; informal discussions did not amount to a plea. | No ineffective assistance; no written plea offer and informal discussions not deemed a plea. |
| Did trial counsel's failure to have Schmid testify prejudice the defense? | Schmid contends she would have testified and that it could have changed the outcome. | Testimony would have been cumulative and there was no showing of prejudice. | No prejudice; trial counsel decision not to have Schmid testify was not shown to affect outcome. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schmid v. State, 804 N.E.2d 174 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (direct appeal; sanity and evidentiary issues)
- Davidson v. State, 763 N.E.2d 441 (Ind. 2002) (post-conviction standard of review)
- Fisher v. State, 810 N.E.2d 674 (Ind. 2004) (weight of evidence; credibility of witnesses; standard for PCR review)
- Grinstead v. State, 845 N.E.2d 1027 (Ind. 2006) (ineffective assistance standard; prejudice inquiry)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance)
- McCovens v. State, 539 N.E.2d 26 (Ind. 1989) (prejudice not shown when evidence is cumulative)
- Lyles v. State, 382 N.E.2d 991 (Ind. 1978) (plea and plea discussions; definition of plea negotiations)
- Gibbs v. State, 952 N.E.2d 214 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (due process and competency considerations in trial)
- Ben-Yisrayl v. State, 729 N.E.2d 102 (Ind. 2000) (standard for PCR weight of evidence; credibility)
- Taylor v. State, 882 N.E.2d 777 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (non-statutory considerations in ineffective assistance analysis)