Ian J. Clark v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 43A03-1605-PC-970

In May 2007 Ian Clark was convicted of murdering his fiancée’s two‑year‑old daughter; the evidence showed extensive blunt‑force injuries and the jury recommended life without parole. Clark’s conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.
Clark filed a pro se petition for post‑conviction relief, later amended and litigated; he alleged ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel.
Major contested events at trial: the State amended the charging information during trial from “knowing and intentionally” to “knowingly or intentionally”; trial counsel withdrew an insanity defense mid‑trial; and the prosecutor made challenged remarks in rebuttal about Clark’s intoxication and community standards.
Trial counsel is deceased; appellate counsel testified he strategically selected issues for direct appeal and omitted some issues he thought weaker or more suitable for post‑conviction review.
The post‑conviction court found counsel’s choices were strategic, the amendment to the information was one of form not substance, the insanity defense withdrawal and prosecutorial remarks did not prejudice Clark given overwhelming evidence, and denied relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether amendment of the information during trial (to "knowingly or intentionally") was substantive and prejudiced Clark	Amendment changed substance, prejudiced defense and plea decisions	Amendment corrected form, did not prejudice; defenses and evidence applicable to both versions	Amendment was one of form, not substance; no prejudice; counsel not ineffective
Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising the amendment issue on direct appeal	Appellate counsel waived a strong, obvious issue	Counsel reasonably omitted it as weaker than issues raised and believed amendment was form	Appellate counsel’s choice was strategic and not deficient; no relief
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to withdraw the insanity defense prior to trial	Insanity defense was doomed by experts and its mention prejudiced jury selection and theory	Withdrawal was likely strategic; references did not change outcome amid overwhelming evidence of guilt	Even if deficient, Clark cannot show prejudice; no relief
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to prosecutor’s rebuttal comments (intoxication/time of drinking)	Remarks were speculative and targeted mens rea, the only contested issue	Intoxication evidence irrelevant to mens rea under statute; comments not sufficiently prejudicial	No prejudice given the evidence; counsel not ineffective

Clark v. State, 915 N.E.2d 126 (Ind. 2009) (direct appeal recounting facts and affirming conviction)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part ineffective assistance standard)
Reed v. State, 856 N.E.2d 1189 (Ind. 2006) (deference to appellate counsel’s issue‑selection; three categories of appellate ineffectiveness)
Fajardo v. State, 859 N.E.2d 1201 (Ind. 2007) (test for whether an amendment is form or substance)
Erkins v. State, 13 N.E.3d 400 (Ind. 2014) (defendant’s substantial rights include notice and opportunity to defend; amendment inquiry focuses on preparation and defense)
Timberlake v. State, 753 N.E.2d 591 (Ind. 2001) (Strickland application and deference to counsel’s strategy)