Corey Middleton v. State of Indiana
2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 429
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Middleton sold cocaine and ecstasy to undercover officers on three days in December 2000; he displayed a .380 handgun and was arrested with the gun found under his seat.
- Charged with multiple drug offenses and possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon (SVF); retained trial counsel Robert Williams, who tried to withdraw shortly before trial but was denied.
- Middleton failed to appear for his scheduled jury trial (tried in absentia); Williams told the court he had discussed a final plea offer with Middleton and Middleton refused it.
- At trial the State introduced a certified Michigan criminal history to prove SVF status; jury convicted Middleton and he received an aggregate 40-year sentence; direct appeal affirmed SVF conviction but vacated some drug-possession counts.
- Middleton filed a post-conviction relief (PCR) petition claiming ineffective assistance for: (1) failing to communicate a plea offer; (2) failing to move to bifurcate SVF from drug charges; (3) counsel’s use of the word “Negro” during voir dire; and (4) failing to object to admission of prior-conviction evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to communicate plea offer | Williams did not tell Middleton of a State plea (guilty to one Class A count; others dismissed) and Middleton would have accepted it | Williams told court he conveyed a final plea and Middleton refused; Middleton absent at trial; no corroborating evidence | Trial court did not err — petitioner failed to show deficient performance or prejudice |
| Failure to move to bifurcate SVF from drug charges | Williams should have sought bifurcation under later Hines/Pace precedent; joinder prejudiced Middleton | At trial, no controlling precedent required bifurcation; motion would not have been compelled then; decision was trial strategy | No deficient performance; Hines/Pace decided after trial and do not control; no prejudice shown |
| Failure to object to admission of prior conviction evidence | Counsel should have objected under Evidence Rule 404 to prior conviction evidence used to prove SVF status | At the time, no requirement to bifurcate; prosecutor properly introduced certified record to prove SVF; objection likely would not have been sustained | No ineffective assistance — objection would likely fail and no prejudice given strong evidence |
| Voir dire racial comment (“Negro”) | Use of the term was racially offensive and undermined adversarial process; counsel’s comment prejudiced Middleton | Counsel’s question was probing juror bias; although word choice poor, overall evidence against Middleton was overwhelming | Counsel’s word choice was deficient but petitioner failed to show prejudice; conviction stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 133 (2012) (counsel must communicate plea offers)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part ineffective assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Bethea v. State, 983 N.E.2d 1134 (Ind. 2013) (burden and standard in Indiana PCR appeals)
- Hines v. State, 801 N.E.2d 634 (Ind. 2004) (bifurcation of SVF and unrelated felony may be required)
- Pace v. State, 981 N.E.2d 1253 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (counsel ineffective for failing to seek bifurcation where Hines controlled)
- Dew v. State, 843 N.E.2d 556 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (prejudice in plea-offer cases requires showing petitioner would have accepted)