51 N.E.3d 1267
Ind. Ct. App.2016Background
- Myers was convicted in 2005 of battery resulting in serious bodily injury; trial counsel was Tippecanoe County public defender Amy Hutchison; appellate counsel was Bruce Graham of Trueblood & Graham.
- Myers pursued post-conviction relief; on April 30, 2012 the post-conviction court found ineffective assistance and vacated Myers’s battery conviction based on a Criminal Rule 4(C) violation.
- In December 2012 Myers sued Maxson (the arresting officer), Hutchison, Graham, and Trueblood & Graham alleging Brady-type due process violation, legal malpractice, constructive fraud, and IIED, and sought damages; he also requested a free transcript of his May 23, 2011 post-conviction evidentiary hearing.
- Defendants moved to dismiss or for summary judgment; the trial court granted summary judgment to Hutchison, Graham, Trueblood & Graham, and later to Maxson; Myers appealed pro se.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed: it held Myers was not entitled to a publicly paid transcript, Graham and the firm’s malpractice claim was time-barred under the two-year statute of limitations (discovery rule), and claims against Hutchison and Maxson were barred by ITCA notice requirements, scope-of-employment/immunity, and statutes of limitation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to free transcript of May 23, 2011 post-conviction hearing | Myers, as indigent, was entitled to a transcript at public expense | Appellate rules permit a statement of evidence when transcript unavailable or unaffordable; Myers did not use that mechanism | Denied — no public-expense transcript; Appellate Rule mechanism (statement of evidence) available and unused |
| Timeliness of malpractice claim against Graham / Trueblood & Graham | Statute of limitations should be tolled until post-conviction vacation of conviction; Heck/Scruggs principles should delay accrual | Myers knew of malpractice (threatened suit Oct. 12, 2006); discovery rule accrual began then; suit filed in 2012 is untimely | Affirmed summary judgment — malpractice accrues when injury is ascertainable; claim time-barred under two-year statute |
| Malpractice / tort claims against Hutchison and ITCA compliance | Hutchison acted outside scope of public-defender employment (so individual suit without ITCA notice possible); post-conviction finding of ineffectiveness equates to malpractice | Hutchison’s acts were within scope of employment; Myers failed to give statutorily required ITCA notice within 180 days and did not substantially comply | Affirmed summary judgment — acts within scope of employment; no ITCA compliance; claim barred |
| Brady claim, witness immunity, and claims vs. Maxson | Maxson suppressed/excluded favorable evidence and fabricated reports; thus no immunity and state/federal claims survive | Brady not implicated because defense knew of the evidence at trial; witness immunity protects testimony; ITCA/limitations not satisfied | Affirmed summary judgment — Brady inapplicable, witness immunity applies, and statute/ITCA bars state claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Campbell v. Criterion Group, 605 N.E.2d 150 (Ind. 1992) (indigent litigant may prepare statement of evidence when transcript unavailable)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (suppression of material favorable evidence violates due process)
- Rehberg v. Paulk, 132 S. Ct. 1497 (U.S. 2012) (witnesses generally immune from suit for trial testimony)
- Silvers v. Brodeur, 682 N.E.2d 811 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (discovery rule governs timeliness of legal malpractice by criminal defendants)
- Barnett v. Clark, 889 N.E.2d 281 (Ind. 2008) (scope of employment requires act be incidental to authorized conduct or further employer’s business)
- Hughley v. State, 15 N.E.3d 1000 (Ind. 2014) (standard of review on summary judgment)
- Manley v. Sherer, 992 N.E.2d 670 (Ind. 2013) (moving party bears initial burden in summary judgment)
- Boggs v. Tri-State Radiology, 730 N.E.2d 692 (Ind. 2000) (burden shifts to nonmovant to establish facts avoiding statute-of-limitations defense)