993 N.E.2d 645
Ind. Ct. App.2013Background
- In 1991 Wayne Kemp was shot and killed; a Taurus 9mm pistol linked by a spent shell casing was found in a trash can behind a friend (Owens), and witnesses Owens and Bill Loveland implicated Jerome Binkley in possession and conduct surrounding the homicide.
- Physical evidence included blood on clothing tied to the victim and a witness trail placing Binkley near Kemp’s car; Loveland testified about Binkley admitting intent to rob Kemp.
- After two mistrials, Binkley was convicted of murder and sentenced to 60 years plus a 30-year habitual-offender enhancement; the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence on direct appeal.
- Loveland’s credibility was attacked at trial and on appeal (multiple inconsistent sworn statements); the Supreme Court nevertheless found a jury could reasonably credit his testimony.
- Binkley filed multiple post-conviction petitions (2000, 2003—later withdrawn) and a 2012 pro se PCR petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to adequately preserve and litigate the knowing use of perjured testimony (Loveland).
- The post-conviction court summarily denied relief under Post-Conviction Rule 1(4) subsection (f); Binkley appealed, arguing the court should have proceeded beyond the pleadings because his ineffective-assistance claim raised factual issues of possible merit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the post-conviction court erred by summarily denying Binkley’s PCR petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel | Binkley: counsel failed to adequately preserve and challenge the State’s knowing use of perjured testimony (Loveland), raising a Strickland claim requiring factual development | State: pleadings conclusively show no relief; underlying credibility issue was addressed on direct appeal and thus PCR is meritless | Court: Reversed — pleadings raised issues of possible merit on ineffective-assistance; summary denial under Rule 1(4)(f) was erroneous; remand for further proceedings and findings under Rule 1(6) |
| Whether the lower court applied the correct summary-denial standard (Rule 1(4)(f) vs. (g)) | Binkley: factual sensitivity of ineffective-assistance claims requires evidentiary development, so denial on pleadings alone was improper | State: relied on pleadings and direct-appeal treatment to justify summary denial | Court: The post-conviction court used subsection (f) (pleadings only); because ineffective-assistance is fact-sensitive, subsection (f) disposition was inappropriate when pleadings raise possible merit; remand required |
Key Cases Cited
- Binkley v. State, 654 N.E.2d 736 (Ind. 1995) (direct appeal affirming conviction and sentence)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Landis v. State, 749 N.E.2d 1130 (Ind. 2001) (post-conviction relief availability distinct from direct appeal)
- Allen v. State, 791 N.E.2d 748 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (distinguishing Rule 1(4)(f) denial on pleadings from Rule 1(4)(g) summary disposition)
- Shepherd v. State, 924 N.E.2d 1274 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (standard of review for post-conviction denials)
- Kelley v. State, 952 N.E.2d 297 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (ineffective-assistance claims are fact-sensitive and may preclude summary denial)