Fernando Trujillo v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 49A05-1601-PC-6

In January 2003 four-year-old C.M. lived with her parents, older brother, and cousin Fernando Trujillo; C.M. alleged that Trujillo sexually molested her on the morning of January 13, 2003.
C.M. reported the incident to her mother the same day; parents sought medical attention and C.M. later gave a videotaped interview (with a bilingual interpreter) at the Family Advocacy Center.
A Child Hearsay Hearing under Ind. Code § 35-37-4-6 found C.M. incompetent but admitted her out-of-court statements (mother’s recitation and the videotape) as having sufficient indicia of reliability; this ruling was affirmed on interlocutory appeal.
Following a bench trial the court found Trujillo guilty of Class A felony child molesting, relying on C.M.’s in-court testimony; the videotaped statement was excluded at trial as cumulative.
Trujillo petitioned for post-conviction relief claiming ineffective assistance of counsel by his two trial attorneys (Salinas for pretrial/hearsay proceedings and Woodmansee for the bench trial), alleging failures to investigate, present/exclude evidence, use experts, and properly impeach or cross-examine witnesses.
The post-conviction court denied relief; the Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding Trujillo failed to prove deficient performance that caused prejudice sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Salinas was ineffective at the child-hearsay proceedings for failing to challenge reliability (e.g., interpreter translation, nurse notes, DCS records, use of experts)	Salinas failed to use available records and challenge translations or present experts to show C.M.’s hearsay was unreliable, which would have excluded hearsay and changed outcome	Even if omissions occurred, trial court later relied on C.M.’s in-court testimony (not the hearsay) when convicting; thus no reasonable probability of a different result	Denied — no prejudice shown; hearsay did not affect the trial court’s guilty finding
Whether Woodmansee was ineffective at trial for inadequate investigation and cross-examination (failure to interview/call witnesses, use medical/DCS records, consult prior counsel)	Woodmansee failed to investigate key witnesses (brother, aunt), cross-examine the interpreter and mother, and use medical/DCS records to impeach C.M., undermining defense	Defendant’s allegations are speculative; petitioner did not show what additional investigation would have produced or how it would have changed the court’s credibility finding of C.M.	Denied — no showing of reasonable probability the verdict would differ; trial court credited C.M.’s testimony

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part ineffective-assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
Ben-Yisrayl v. State, 738 N.E.2d 253 (Ind. 2000) (scope and purpose of post-conviction proceedings)
Timberlake v. State, 753 N.E.2d 591 (Ind. 2001) (prejudice prong may be resolved before deficiency prong)
Williams v. State, 771 N.E.2d 70 (Ind. 2002) (presumption of effective assistance; defendant must offer strong and convincing evidence)
McKnight v. State, 1 N.E.3d 193 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (deference to counsel’s investigation choices; hindsight review cautioned)