Carlos Ramirez v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
20A03-1703-PC-495
| Ind. Ct. App. | Sep 20, 2017Background
- In summer 2008 a confidential informant bought cocaine from Carlos Ramirez on three occasions; Ramirez was charged with three counts of dealing in cocaine (one A felony, two B felonies).
- Ramirez was tried, convicted, and originally sentenced; on direct appeal the Court of Appeals reduced and reordered the concurrent sentences.
- In 2015 Ramirez filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief alleging trial counsel Brent Zook failed to inform him of a 25-year plea offer before trial.
- At the post-conviction hearing Zook had died; Ramirez testified he was never told about the 25-year offer and would have accepted it.
- The State presented Clifford Williams, longtime chief public defender, who produced Zook’s case file containing an ‘‘Attorney Notes’’ entry dated May 28, 2009 stating Ramirez “turn[ed] down the deal of 25 cap on A.” The post-conviction court found Ramirez not credible and denied relief.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, explaining it will not reweigh evidence or judge witness credibility where the post-conviction court’s factual findings are supported.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to inform Ramirez of a 25-year plea offer | Ramirez: Zook never told him about a 25-year offer and he would have accepted it | State: Evidence (Zook’s handwritten note) and testimony show Zook informed Ramirez and Ramirez rejected the offer | Court: Denied relief — post-conviction court’s finding that Zook informed Ramirez and Ramirez declined is upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Stevens v. State, 770 N.E.2d 739 (Ind. 2002) (standards for post-conviction relief burden and review)
- Timberlake v. State, 753 N.E.2d 591 (Ind. 2001) (limits on post-conviction review; not a super-appeal)
- Sanders v. State, 765 N.E.2d 591 (Ind. 2002) (post-conviction cognizable claims: ineffective assistance or issues unavailable earlier)
- Stephenson v. State, 864 N.E.2d 1022 (Ind. 2007) (ineffective-assistance test and appellate review deference to factual findings)
- Smith v. State, 770 N.E.2d 290 (Ind. 2002) (petitioner must show evidence as a whole leads unerringly to opposite result)
- Dew v. State, 843 N.E.2d 556 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (duty of defense counsel to inform client of plea offers)