James McDuffy v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
49A05-1612-PC-2834
| Ind. Ct. App. | Dec 14, 2017Background
- In 2001 James McDuffy pleaded guilty to theft (Class D); the burglary count was dismissed; he received a suspended sentence with probation and various conditions (community service, GED, fees).
- Probation department filed notices alleging new criminal charges and multiple probation violations (failure to pay, failure to report, incomplete community service, failure to continue GED); McDuffy appeared with counsel at multiple hearings and admitted some violations.
- At an April 11, 2002 probation revocation hearing McDuffy (through counsel Reyome) agreed to a disposition significantly less than the original suspended exposure; the court revoked probation and sentenced McDuffy to jail time.
- McDuffy filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief in 2013 alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, that a defense attorney also acted as prosecutor, denial of discovery/subpoenas, and judicial bias; he later amended the petition and sought transfer to an elected judge.
- The post-conviction court held an evidentiary hearing (testimony from Reyome and McDuffy), denied discovery/subpoena/transfer requests, found counsel’s performance adequate, found McDuffy not credible, and denied relief; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abuse of discretion for denying document production | McDuffy: needed transcripts and probation/juvenile records to show amended notice/hearing cancellation and lack of service | State: requests were vague and amounted to rummaging; relevant record (CCS, transcript) was available | Denial affirmed — McDuffy failed to show additional documents would change result |
| Denial of subpoena for Attorney Wyser | McDuffy: Wyser acted as both public defender and prosecutor; his testimony was necessary | State: Wyser’s limited role was reflected in the record; petitioner failed to specify expected testimony | Denial affirmed — petitioner didn't meet affidavit/substance requirement and record showed Wyser’s limited role |
| Denial of transfer to elected judge | McDuffy: timely request under cited statute | State: request was untimely under applicable statute | Denial affirmed — request filed years after petition and after hearings; statute time limits applied |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel at probation revocation | McDuffy: counsel failed to advise that nonpayment alone cannot revoke probation under statute | State: Reyome represented McDuffy in a procedurally fair hearing; revocation based on multiple admitted violations | Denial affirmed — counsel reached an advantageous agreement; McDuffy admitted violations; no deficient performance or prejudice shown |
| Judicial bias at post-conviction hearing | McDuffy: judge assumed adversarial role and disfavored him | State: adverse rulings and credibility findings do not prove bias | Denial affirmed — credibility determinations and questioning did not demonstrate actual bias |
Key Cases Cited
- Fisher v. State, 810 N.E.2d 674 (discusses burden and review standard in post-conviction proceedings)
- Roche v. State, 690 N.E.2d 1115 (trial court discovery decisions reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Pannell v. State, 36 N.E.3d 477 (post-conviction subpoena discretion explained)
- French v. State, 778 N.E.2d 816 (ineffective assistance standard under Indiana law)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective assistance test)
- Morgan v. State, 755 N.E.2d 1070 (presumption of adequate assistance of counsel)
- Williams v. State, 771 N.E.2d 70 (defendant must offer strong evidence to overcome counsel presumption)
- Clark v. State, 668 N.E.2d 1206 (isolated poor tactics do not automatically equal ineffective assistance)
- Whitener v. State, 696 N.E.2d 40 (deference to counsel’s reasonable strategy)
- Burr v. State, 492 N.E.2d 306 (strategy not subject to hindsight second-guessing)
- Perez v. State, 748 N.E.2d 853 (reasonable probability standard for prejudice)
- Jordan v. State, 60 N.E.3d 1062 (less stringent review for counsel performance at probation revocation)
- Perry v. State, 904 N.E.2d 302 (standard for proving judicial bias)