33 N.E.3d 1077
Ind. Ct. App.2015Background
- Behrman disappeared May 31, 2000; Behrman’s remains found March 9, 2003; Myers was the defendant in a 2006 murder trial resulting in a 65-year sentence.
- Myers challenged the conviction via a post-conviction relief petition filed February 2, 2009; an evidentiary hearing occurred in 2013 and PCR court denied relief November 18, 2013.
- This court previously affirmed the conviction on direct appeal; the Indiana Supreme Court denied transfer.
- The PCR record includes extensive briefing on trial-counsel performance, including handling of a redacted May 2, 2005 interrogation and various witnesses.
- The post-conviction court applied Strickland v. Washington to evaluate ineffective assistance of counsel claims and held Myers failed to prove deficient performance with prejudice.
- The court also addressed Brady claims and prosecutorial misconduct as alternative grounds for relief, ultimately affirming denial of relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance of trial counsel | Myers argues numerous deficient performances by trial counsel. | Counsel’s strategic choices and investigations were reasonable. | No clear error; claims fail for lack of prejudice or deficient performance. |
| Due process Brady claim | State suppressed exculpatory evidence favorable to Myers. | Cannot identify specific suppressed material; discovery was fluid and not shown to be suppressed. | Brady claim not established. |
| Prosecutorial misconduct | State presented or allowed false or misleading evidence and perjured testimony. | PCR not suitable for standalone trial-error claims; insufficient showing of misconduct. | |
| Cumulative and standalone prosecutorial-misconduct claims rejected; PCR affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bethea v. State, 983 N.E.2d 1134 (Ind. 2013) (prejudice standard; post-conviction review requires clear error)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishing deficient performance and prejudice for ineffective assistance)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (U.S. 2011) (policy on reviewing trial counsel strategy and prejudice under Strickland)
- Hampton v. Leibach, 347 F.3d 219 (7th Cir. 2003) (addressing promises in opening statements and failure to present promised evidence)
- Barrow v. Uchtman, 398 F.3d 597 (7th Cir. 2005) (aftermath of opening-statement promises; prejudice assessment when other exculpatory evidence exists)