J.B. Whitelow, Jr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
45A03-1701-PC-129
| Ind. Ct. App. | Dec 19, 2017Background
- Whitelow was convicted of murder and attempted battery after a retrial and sentenced to 55 years for murder, 4 years for attempted battery, plus a 30-year habitual offender enhancement (total 89 years).
- Post-conviction relief petitions were filed in 2012 and 2013; counsel size and representation changed over time; an evidentiary hearing occurred September 24, 2015.
- The post-conviction court denied relief on all claims after findings of fact and conclusions of law.
- Whitelow argued ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel on multiple grounds, including DNA testimony, identification issues, perjury allegations, impeachment, venue, expert evaluation, and habitual offender advice.
- The Indiana Court of Appeals reviews for clear error on factual findings and applies Strickland standards to assess ineffective assistance claims; the court upheld the post-conviction court’s denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Whitelow denied effective trial counsel? | Whitelow contends multiple failings by counsel amounted to prejudice | Whitelow cannot show sustained objections or prejudice | No clear error; no prejudice shown by the failures claimed. |
| Was Whitelow denied effective appellate counsel? | Appellate counsel failed to raise a meritorious sentencing issue | Strategic choice not to raise issues was reasonable | No clear error; failure to raise issues not ineffective assistance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. Supreme Court 1984) (establishes two-prong test for ineffective assistance)
- Timberlake v. State, 753 N.E.2d 591 (Ind. 2001) (precise prejudice inquiry; strong deference to strategy)
- McCary v. State, 761 N.E.2d 389 (Ind. 2002) (post-conviction burdens and standard of review)
- Henderson v. State, 44 N.E.3d 811 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (consecutive sentence aggravator requirements)
- Ward v. State, 810 N.E.2d 1042 (Ind. 2004) (change of venue considerations and publicity)
- Jones v. State, 749 N.E.2d 575 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (independent basis for identification evidence)
- Daniels v. State, 658 N.E.2d 121 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (inconsistencies do not establish perjury)