Bethea v. State
2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 113
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Bethea pled guilty to two class B felonies (robbery of Gates and confinement of Dailey) in exchange for dismissal of seven charges, with a 40-year aggregate sentence imposed consecutively.
- At sentencing, the court weighed multiple aggravators (including Dailey's injuries and residence-only offenses) and minimized mitigators, resulting in the maximum sentence under a plea agreement.
- Seaton, a seventeen-year-old co-defendant, was involved in the crimes and Bethea used her to gain access to the victims’ home.
- Bethea testified about his abusive childhood, ADHD, learning disabilities, drug use, and lack of juvenile records; the State emphasized Bethea’s juvenile co-defendant and rehabilitation history.
- Bethea challenged his post-conviction relief on two fronts: (1) ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to introduce Seaton’s deposition/order; (2) ineffective appellate counsel for failing to challenge aggravators and pursue Appellate Rule 7(B).
- PCR court denied relief; Bethea appealed, and the court affirmed denial, holding trial counsel’s strategy was reasonable and appellate issues did not prejudice the outcome.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not introducing Seaton’s deposition and sentencing order. | Bethea (Bethea) argues deposition/order would negate the juvenile-use aggravator. | State argues deposition/order contained prejudicial information; strategic choice to withhold was valid. | No reversible error; strategic withholding was reasonable. |
| Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not challenging aggravators or pursuing Appellate Rule 7(B). | Bethea asserts unchallenged aggravators and Rule 7(B) review were viable, obvious issues. | Appellate counsel exercised reasonable discretion; issues not clearly stronger. | Not prejudicial; appellate counsel not ineffective. |
| Whether the trial court impermissibly relied on injuries and dwelling location as aggravators in light of the plea agreement. | Farmer/Roney limitations argued against using dismissed charges/element injuries as aggravators. | Court properly considered injuries and residence as aggravators; no error. | Court properly considered injuries as aggravators; Farmer and Roney not controlling in this context. |
Key Cases Cited
- Farmer v. State, 772 N.E.2d 1025 (Ind.Ct.App.2002) (aggravating factors tied to dismissed charges improper under plea)
- Roney v. State, 872 N.E.2d 192 (Ind.Ct.App.2007) (aggravators based on uncharged conduct barred by plea agreement)
- Carlson v. State, 716 N.E.2d 469 (Ind.Ct.App.1999) (guilty plea to lesser offense; cannot use distinguishing elements as aggravators)
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind.2007) (abuse of discretion standard for sentencing factors)
- Taylor v. State, 840 N.E.2d 324 (Ind.2006) (deferential review for unraised appellate issues)
- Gray v. State, 841 N.E.2d 1210 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) (significance of issues and strategy in appellate decisions)
- Wrinkles v. State, 749 N.E.2d 1179 (Ind.2001) (types of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel)
- Holloway v. State, 950 N.E.2d 803 (Ind.Ct.App.2011) (Appellate Rule 7(B) use and deference to trial court)