Gerald L. Doll v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 91A05-1704-PC-912

In 2012 Gerald L. Doll pleaded guilty to Class B felony robbery (resulting in bodily injury), Class C felony robbery, and Class D felony resisting law enforcement pursuant to a plea agreement; two other counts were dropped and the State agreed not to file a habitual-offender enhancement.
Doll admitted at the plea hearing that he understood the agreement, discussed it with counsel, signed it, and agreed with the factual basis; the court accepted the plea and imposed consecutive sentences (20 + 8 + 2 years = 30 years).
Doll filed a petition for post-conviction relief in 2016 alleging (1) his plea was not voluntary because the State threatened a habitual-offender enhancement, (2) trial counsel was ineffective (failed to depose witnesses, failed to explain sentence exposure, failed to challenge the habituaI-offender threat), and (3) the sentence was erroneous due to unsubstantiated aggravators and Apprendi/Blakely error.
After an evidentiary hearing the post-conviction court denied relief, finding Doll failed to show his plea was involuntary or that counsel’s performance fell below reasonable standards or caused prejudice.
On appeal the Court of Appeals reviewed voluntariness, ineffective-assistance claims under Strickland and Segura (for plea-related claims), and sentencing under the advisory sentencing scheme; it affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Doll)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Voluntariness of plea	Plea was coerced by State’s threat of a habitual-offender enhancement, so not knowing/voluntary	Doll knowingly entered plea after colloquy; threat of enhancement was realistic negotiation, not coercion	Affirmed — plea was knowing and voluntary
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Counsel failed to depose witnesses, failed to explain sentence exposure, and failed to object to late habitual-offender threat	Counsel negotiated favorable plea, discussed risks including habitual enhancement; failures not shown to be objectively deficient or prejudicial	Affirmed — no deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland/Segura
Erroneous sentence / Apprendi/Blakely claim	Trial court used unsubstantiated aggravators and denied jury determination of facts increasing sentence	Sentence was within statutory ranges under Indiana’s advisory scheme (post-Smylie revisions); plea admitted facts and was within ranges	Affirmed — sentence lawful under advisory sentencing; no Apprendi/Blakely violation

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing ineffective-assistance two-prong test)
Segura v. State, 749 N.E.2d 496 (categorization and analysis of plea-related ineffective-assistance claims)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (facts increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury)
Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (limits on judicial fact-finding to enhance sentences)
Smylie v. State, 823 N.E.2d 679 (Indiana sentencing scheme found unconstitutional pre-revision; led to legislative changes)
Marbley-El v. State, 929 N.E.2d 194 (post-revision advisory sentencing permits any sentence within statutory range)
Willoughby v. State, 792 N.E.2d 560 (post-conviction burden and appellate standard)
Henley v. State, 881 N.E.2d 639 (standard for reversing post-conviction court findings)