George Anderson Reese, Jr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 31A01-1609-PC-2164

In 2010 George A. Reese Jr. was charged with Class A felony child molesting; a jury convicted him and found him a habitual offender; he was sentenced to 70 years (40 + 30).
On direct appeal this Court affirmed the conviction but found that the prosecutor committed misconduct by implying undisclosed evidence, although that misconduct did not amount to fundamental error because the trial was nonetheless fair.
Reese raised a post-conviction relief (PCR) petition asserting ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to object to the prosecutor’s comments and to move for a mistrial.
The post-conviction court denied relief; Reese appealed arguing his counsel’s failure to object prejudiced him despite the direct-appeal finding of no fundamental error.
The Court reviewed the Strickland two-prong ineffective-assistance standard and the law-of-the-case doctrine, considered the prior finding of prosecutorial misconduct, and examined other inculpatory evidence (cellmate testimony and a polygraph deemed deceptive).
The Court concluded Reese failed to show prejudice under Strickland (no reasonable probability of a different outcome absent counsel’s omission) and affirmed the post-conviction denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting/requesting a mistrial after prosecutorial comments implying undisclosed evidence	Reese: counsel’s failure to object to prosecutorial misconduct denied him effective assistance and prejudiced the outcome	State: prior appellate ruling found prosecutorial misconduct but not fundamental error; combined record (victim’s consistent core testimony, polygraph results, cellmate statements) shows no Strickland prejudice	Court: Counsel’s omission did not cause prejudice under Strickland; PCR denial affirmed

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective assistance standard)
Reed v. State, 866 N.E.2d 767 (Ind. 2007) (applies Strickland in Indiana; articulates deficiency and prejudice prongs)
Williams v. State, 706 N.E.2d 149 (Ind. 1999) (limits scope of PCR as narrow collateral remedy)
McCorker v. State, 797 N.E.2d 257 (Ind. 2003) (discusses relationship between fundamental error and ineffective-assistance claims where counsel failed to object)
Benefield v. State, 945 N.E.2d 791 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (explains distinction between fundamental error analysis and Strickland prejudice; cumulative errors can establish ineffective assistance)
Wisehart v. State, 693 N.E.2d 23 (Ind. 1998) (sets standard for assessing prosecutorial misconduct and "gravity of peril")