Benefield v. State
2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 634
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Benefield presented an apparently QMA certification letter at a job interview; verification showed no valid QMA certification.
- She was charged with Class C felony forgery and habitual offender status based on the forged letter.
- Trial court instructed that defraud includes reckless misrepresentation; Benefield objected but instruction was given.
- On appeal, the direct-review panel held the defraud instruction was improper but not fundamental error.
- Benefield filed a post-conviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for not objecting to Exhibit 7 testimony and to jury instruction 6; the post-conviction court denied relief.
- The appellate court affirmed, distinguishing fundamental error from ineffective assistance, and held no prejudice established under Strickland standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to object to Exhibit 7 testimony was ineffective | Benefield | Benefield's counsel strategy permitted highlighting other theory; no ineffective assistance | No ineffective assistance; strategic reason justified |
| Whether failure to object to jury instruction 6 amounted to ineffective assistance | Benefield | Instruction misstated mens rea but other correct instructions existed | No prejudice; not ineffective assistance |
Key Cases Cited
- Moore v. State, 649 N.E.2d 686 (Ind.Ct.App.1995) (fundamental error standard higher than ordinary error; appellate counsel not automatically ineffective when non-fundamental)
- Jewell v. State, 887 N.E.2d 939 (Ind.2008) (post-conviction proceedings may raise ineffective assistance not barred by direct appeal)
- Rouster v. State, 705 N.E.2d 999 (Ind.1999) (prejudice standard for ineffective assistance relates to fundamental error; distinct standards)
- Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364 (1993) (focus on fundamental fairness in assessing prejudice)
- Perez v. State, 872 N.E.2d 208 (Ind.Ct.App.2007) (cumulative and contextual evaluation of jury instructions)
- McCorker v. State, 797 N.E.2d 257 (Ind.2003) (fundamental error vs. prejudice analysis distinction)