James Orlando Washington v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
45A04-1610-PC-2421
| Ind. Ct. App. | Jul 7, 2017Background
- James Orlando Washington was charged in 2001 with multiple felonies (attempted rape, two counts of rape, criminal confinement, burglary, robbery); convicted by jury in March 2005 and sentenced to 120 years; direct appeal affirmed.
- Washington filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief in 2014 alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel; evidentiary hearing held in 2015; petition denied in 2016.
- Principal claims: trial counsel failed to (A) seek change of venue for pretrial publicity, (B) conduct adequate investigation (mental health, school/medical/military history, family interviews, second DNA expert), and (C) communicate a prior plea offer; appellate counsel allegedly failed to raise an Indiana Criminal Rule 4(C) one-year discharge claim.
- Post-conviction court found counsel’s decisions were strategic, petitioner offered little or no corroborating evidence (no testimony from prior counsel or expert proof), and defense had opportunities but did not preserve or pursue Rule 4(C) relief.
- On appeal the Court of Appeals applied the Strickland standard (deficient performance + prejudice) and affirmed denial of post-conviction relief.
Issues
| Issue | Washington's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Change of venue for pretrial publicity | Pretrial media tainted venire; counsel ineffective for not moving for change of venue | No showing venue produced biased jury; voir dire addressed exposure; strategic decision by counsel | Denied — counsel’s choice reasonable; potential biased jurors excused; no prejudice shown |
| Investigation (mental health, records, family interviews, second DNA expert) | Counsel failed to investigate mitigating/defensive evidence and obtain second DNA opinion | No evidence presented that further investigation would have produced admissible or mitigating proof; DNA error not needing expert | Denied — petitioner failed to present what additional investigation would have shown; counsel’s choices reasonable |
| Failure to communicate plea offer | Counsel (Stigler) failed to inform Washington of an alleged 20-year plea offer | No evidence that offer was extended, available, or that earlier counsel failed to convey it; no corroboration from prior counsel | Denied — petitioner did not prove offer was communicated to counsel and would have been accepted; court permissibly inferred prior counsel would not corroborate |
| Appellate counsel failed to raise Rule 4(C) one-year discharge | Appellate counsel ineffective for not raising Criminal Rule 4(C) violation (1,340-day delay) | Record shows delays caused by congestion/defendant requests; defense did not timely object or pursue reconsideration; Rule 4(C) claim was not preserved | Denied — petitioner waived broader constitutional speedy-trial claims; record did not clearly show Rule 4(C) violation; no deficient performance or prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes two-prong ineffective assistance test)
- Fisher v. State, 810 N.E.2d 674 (Ind. 2004) (standards of review in post-conviction proceedings)
- Garrett v. State, 992 N.E.2d 710 (Ind. 2013) (standards for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel)
- Wentz v. State, 766 N.E.2d 351 (Ind. 2002) (change-of-venue analysis for prejudicial pretrial publicity)
- Vermillion v. State, 719 N.E.2d 1201 (Ind. 1999) (Crim. R. 4: defendant must object timely to preserve one-year discharge right)
- Brown v. State, 725 N.E.2d 823 (Ind. 2000) (defendant must object to trial setting beyond one year or waive Rule 4 discharge)
- Logan v. State, 16 N.E.3d 953 (Ind. 2014) (Criminal Rule 4 challenges distinct from constitutional speedy-trial review)
- Dickson v. State, 533 N.E.2d 586 (Ind. 1989) (post-conviction court may infer uncalled witnesses would not have corroborated appellant)