James A. Briley, Jr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 58A01-1611-PC-2587

James A. Briley pleaded guilty pursuant to negotiated agreements to 2 Class B burglary convictions (River House III and Hong Kong Kitchen) and 6 Class C burglary convictions arising from separate bar/restaurant burglaries; related conspiracy counts were dismissed.
The Class B elevation rested on the State’s theory that each business had an attached dwelling (making the offense a burglary of a dwelling).
At plea hearing the court confirmed Briley understood he was pleading to two Class B felonies and the potential penalties; factual admissions were made.
At sentencing the court found significant aggravators (extensive criminal history, probation status, planning/skill) and imposed concurrent terms within each county but ordered the counties’ sentences consecutive for a 26-year aggregate term.
Briley filed a post-conviction petition alleging ineffective assistance (counsel failed to investigate/advice that B-elevation was unsupportable) and that his plea was not knowing/voluntary; the post-conviction court denied relief after a hearing with conflicting testimony about how the premises were used.
On appeal the court affirmed, holding counsel’s performance was not shown to be deficient or, alternatively, Briley could not show prejudice (no reasonable probability of a more favorable outcome at trial or sentencing).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Briley)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Ineffective assistance of counsel — failure to advise that B-elevation (dwelling) was unsupported	Sorge failed to investigate/advise that the apartments above the businesses were separate and not dwellings; had Briley known, he would have gone to trial or pled only to Cs	Evidence was sufficient to support a factual dispute about residential use; counsel reasonably believed State could prove dwelling element; performance presumed effective	Affirmed — Briley failed to overcome presumption of effective assistance; alternatively, no prejudice shown because sentencing exposure and likely outcome did not make a different result reasonably probable
Voluntariness/knowledge of guilty plea — plea to Class B felonies was coerced/misinformed	Briley says he was misadvised about penal consequences (faced only Cs) and would not have pleaded to Bs if correctly informed	Court and counsel advised Briley of the B charges and penalties; factual admissions and plea colloquy show he knowingly pleaded to Bs	Affirmed — plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary; record supports plea colloquy and post-conviction findings

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
Segura v. State, 749 N.E.2d 496 (Ind. 2001) (defendant who pled guilty must show he would not have pled but for counsel and that trial would have produced a better result)
Passwater v. State, 989 N.E.2d 766 (Ind. 2013) (post-conviction burden of proof and review standards)
Diaz v. State, 934 N.E.2d 1089 (Ind. 2010) (standard for determining validity of guilty plea — voluntary and intelligent choice)
Minneman v. State, 466 N.E.2d 438 (Ind. 1984) (structure containing both business and living quarters may qualify as dwelling for burglary purposes)
Shepard v. State, 839 N.E.2d 1268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (attached garage counted as dwelling even without direct interior access)