Buford G. Lee v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
10A04-1505-PC-525
| Ind. Ct. App. | Nov 29, 2016Background
- In Sept. 2013 detectives used a confidential informant to make two controlled heroin purchases at the Jeffersonville Housing Authority; buys were audio/video recorded and detectives surveilled the transactions.
- State charged Buford G. Lee with multiple drug offenses including two Class A dealing counts within 1,000 feet of family housing and alleged habitual-offender enhancement.
- During trial the State played at least one video; after an in‑court limine dispute the prosecutor offered a plea resolving the instant case as a single Class A felony in exchange for dismissal of remaining counts and dismissal of charges in two unrelated cases.
- Lee, represented by appointed counsel Christopher Sturgeon, accepted the plea; court accepted it and later sentenced Lee to 25 years (20 executed).
- Lee filed a pro se amended petition for post-conviction relief alleging (inter alia) ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to investigate, withholding evidence, pressuring him to plead, and failing to subpoena witnesses; post-conviction court denied relief.
- On appeal Lee argued (consolidated): (1) post-conviction court failed to make findings on all issues; (2) ineffective assistance of trial counsel; (3) court abused discretion by refusing to continue/postpone hearing so Lee could subpoena additional witnesses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lee) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether post-conviction court failed to issue findings on all issues | Court adopted State's proposed findings verbatim and omitted addressing Lee's claimed Sixth Amendment right to self-representation and other matters | Court acted after receiving Lee’s proposed findings; adoption of State’s proposal is not per se error where issue was not raised below | Affirmed — no error; the self-representation claim was not raised in the PCR petition and is waived |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel regarding plea advice and withheld evidence | Sturgeon misadvised Lee about what detectives would testify (that Lee personally handed drugs) and withheld depositions; had Lee known, he would not have pled | Evidence (video/deposition) showed Lee accepted money and transferred heroin (via Overton) which supports a constructive delivery; plea avoided additional charges and dismissals in other cases | Affirmed — Lee failed Strickland prejudice prong; no reasonable probability of a different outcome at trial |
| Failure to provide/consider Pre‑Sentence Report or sentencing assistance | Lee says counsel was ineffective for not objecting to absence of PSI and for not presenting mitigating witnesses | Record shows a PSI existed and defense received it; any deficiencies stemmed from Lee’s failure to cooperate | Affirmed — issue waived on appeal and factually unsupported; not ineffective assistance |
| Denial of continuance to subpoena additional witnesses at PCR hearing | Lee sought subpoenas for detectives, co-defendant, and an inmate to testify; claimed their testimony would show counsel’s misconduct | Lee failed to follow Post‑Conviction Rule 1(9) (no affidavits of expected testimony, did not reissue subpoenas for rescheduled date); court found depositions and proffer were sufficient and testimony would be cumulative | Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion in refusing continuance or issuing subpoenas |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑pronged test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Stevens v. State, 770 N.E.2d 739 (Ind. 2002) (post‑conviction burden and waiver for issues not raised below)
- Segura v. State, 749 N.E.2d 496 (Ind. 2001) (categories of ineffective‑assistance claims after guilty pleas)
- McCullough v. State, 987 N.E.2d 1173 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (applying Strickland in plea/ineffective assistance context)
- Rondeau v. State, 48 N.E.3d 907 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (standard for subpoena issuance in post‑conviction proceedings)