Joseph Fuentes v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 71A03-1705-PC-1003

On Oct. 2, 2012, Joseph Fuentes led police on a vehicle and foot chase and fired multiple shots; officers later found an AR-15 in his car. He was charged with attempted murder, felon-in-possession, criminal recklessness, resisting, intimidation (later dismissed), and carrying a handgun without a license.
A jury convicted Fuentes of multiple counts; he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession and received an aggregate executed sentence of 40 years. Convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.
In Aug. 2015 Fuentes filed a petition for post-conviction relief claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel for (a) failing to strike a juror (later abandoned) and (b) failing to adequately impeach Officer Tim Cichowicz with an alleged prior inconsistent statement about where Fuentes pointed his gun during the second round of shots.
At the post-conviction evidentiary hearing counsel testified the decision not to impeach was strategic: Cichowicz’s trial testimony (that the second shots were fired into the air) aligned with defense theory that Fuentes lacked specific intent to kill.
The post-conviction court denied relief. Fuentes appealed solely on the impeachment/ineffective-assistance claim; the Court of Appeals affirmed, finding counsel’s tactic was reasonable strategy and Fuentes failed to overcome the strong presumption of effective assistance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to impeach Officer Cichowicz with a prior inconsistent statement about where the gun was pointed during the second round	Fuentes: counsel should have highlighted the inconsistency to undermine Cichowicz’s credibility and support lack-of-intent theory	State/Trial counsel: omission was tactical because Cichowicz’s trial testimony better supported the defense theory that shots were fired into the air, undermining specific intent to kill	Court: Counsel’s choice was a reasonable trial strategy; no strong and convincing evidence of deficient performance, so ineffective-assistance claim fails

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: performance and prejudice)
Overstreet v. State, 877 N.E.2d 144 (Ind. 2007) (presumption of effectiveness overcome only by strong and convincing evidence)
French v. State, 778 N.E.2d 816 (Ind. 2002) (objective standard of reasonableness for counsel performance)
Hinesley v. State, 999 N.E.2d 975 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (deference to post-conviction findings where same judge presided over trial and PCR)
Bivins v. State, 735 N.E.2d 1116 (Ind. 2000) (counsel permitted reasonable strategic judgments on witness impeachment)
Spradlin v. State, 569 N.E.2d 948 (Ind. 1991) (discussing intent required for attempt crimes)