Garcia v. State
2010 Ind. App. LEXIS 2067
Ind. Ct. App.2010Background
- Garcia was convicted of three counts of child molesting and three counts of attempted sexual misconduct with a minor based on sexual acts with a twelve-year-old (A.S.).
- The jury instruction on attempted sexual misconduct with a minor required that Garcia believed A.S. to be fourteen, which Garcia argues made the child molesting convictions inconsistent with the jury verdicts.
- The trial court sentenced Garcia to twenty-year terms on each child molesting conviction, with two consecutive, for an aggregate of forty years.
- Garcia filed a pro se post-conviction relief petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for not challenging the purported inconsistencies and for not challenging the consecutive sentences, and alleging trial counsel failure to raise Walker/Ortiz-related arguments at sentencing.
- The post-conviction court denied relief; Garcia appeals challenging the denial on ineffective-assistance grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective appellate counsel for failing to raise inconsistent verdicts | Garcia argues verdicts were inconsistent because a conviction for attempted sexual misconduct showed he believed A.S. was fourteen. | State contends Beattie v. State bars review of verdict inconsistencies; prejudice not shown. | No reversal; Beattie bars prejudice finding; no ineffective assistance shown. |
| Ineffective appellate counsel for sentencing arguments | Garcia contends appellate counsel should have argued the consecutive sentences were improper under Walker/Ortiz lines of authority. | State argues sentencing decisions were supported by aggravating factors and the aggregate sentence was within range. | No reversal; insufficient showing that unraised issue was clearly stronger or that prejudice existed. |
| Ineffective trial counsel for not raising Walker/Ortiz at sentencing | Garcia claims trial counsel should have invoked Walker/Ortiz to obtain non-consecutive sentences. | State asserts trial counsel's failure to raise those lines could not be shown to prejudice the outcome. | No reversal; no reasonable probability that outcome would differ. |
Key Cases Cited
- Beattie v. State, 924 N.E.2d 643 (Ind.2010) (jury verdicts not reviewable for inconsistency)
- Ortiz v. State, 766 N.E.2d 370 (Ind.2002) (consecutive sentences; consideration of aggravators)
- Walker v. State, 747 N.E.2d 536 (Ind.2001) (consecutive sentences for child molestation guidance)
- Estes v. State, 827 N.E.2d 27 (Ind.2005) (consecutive sentences in child molesting cases)
- Cotto v. State, 829 N.E.2d 520 (Ind.2005) (prior bad acts and sentencing)
- Bieghler v. State, 690 N.E.2d 188 (Ind.1997) (ineffective assistance standard; prejudice required)
- T.M. v. State, 804 N.E.2d 773 (Ind.Ct.App.2004) (defense to child molesting based on belief about age)
- Perry v. State, 904 N.E.2d 302 (Ind.Ct.App.2009) (post-conviction burden; standard of review)