Hill v. State
2012 Ind. LEXIS 11
| Ind. | 2012Background
- Hill pleaded guilty to multiple counts in 2004 and received an aggregate 52-year sentence; he did not timely appeal.
- Hill pursued post-conviction relief (P-C.R.1) in 2005; later counsel withdrew that petition without prejudice.
- Hill’s counsel sought permission under P-C.R.2 to file a belated notice of appeal; the trial court denied.
- Counsel did not timely appeal the denial of the P-C.R.2 petition; Hill later pursued P-C.R.1 alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.
- Court of Appeals held P-C.R.2 counsel’s failure to timely appeal violated Baum v. State; Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer.
- Court eventually held that P-C.R.2 counsel is evaluated under Baum, not Strickland, and Reed did not violate Baum in this case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What standard governs P-C.R.2 counsel’s performance? | Hill argues Strickland should apply. | State contends Baum applies. | Baum standard applies. |
| Did Reed’s failure to timely appeal the P-C.R.2 denial violate Baum? | Hill claims abandonment under Baum. | Reed fulfilled petitioning duties; not abandonment. | Reed did not violate Baum. |
| Does a failure to appeal a P-C.R.2 denial bar collateral review in this context? | Hill seeks belated direct review via P-C.R.1. | Baum governs P-C.R.2 proceedings; no bypass. | No automatic bypass; Baum governs evaluation. |
| Is Hill entitled to appellate review of the P-C.R.2 denial? | Hill should get belated direct review. | Final denial remains; no jurisdiction to review. | No direct appeal granted absent proper P-C.R.2 outcome. |
| Was Reed’s overall performance during P-C.R.2 proceedings procedurally fair? | Hill alleges improper representation. | Reed conducted hearing, presented evidence, argued precedent. | Reed’s performance deemed procedurally fair. |
Key Cases Cited
- Baum v. State, 533 N.E.2d 1200 (Ind. 1989) (Baum standard governs post-conviction counsel)
- Kling v. State, 837 N.E.2d 502 (Ind. 2005) (defense of P-C.R.2 representation (State Defender) in belated appeals)
- Waters v. State, 574 N.E.2d 911 (Ind. 1991) (Baum violation when counsel abandons defendant)
- Graves v. State, 823 N.E.2d 1194 (Ind. 2005) (post-conviction counsel not abandoned when participates at hearing)
- Mosley v. State, 908 N.E.2d 599 (Ind. 2009) (counsel must file advocate brief in direct appeal; relevance to standards)
- Gutermuth v. State, 868 N.E.2d 427 (Ind. 2007) (P-C.R.2 belated appeal standards; lack of fault and diligence)