Joseph Miller v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
64A04-1609-PC-2121
| Ind. Ct. App. | Apr 5, 2017Background
- In July 2009, nine-year-old M.S. stayed overnight at Joseph Miller's home and later reported sexual contact; medical exam noted perihymenal redness and a small red area on the hymen.
- Miller was charged July 31, 2009 with two counts of child molesting, elevated to Class A because the information listed his DOB in the caption (6-21-77) though the body did not expressly allege he was over 21.
- At trial, the jury convicted Miller of Count II (Class A child molesting based on deviate sexual conduct); he was sentenced to the advisory 30-year term.
- Miller appealed and lost; he then filed a post-conviction petition claiming ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to raise that the charging information omitted the age element elevating the offense to Class A.
- The post-conviction court denied relief; on appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed, finding Miller had notice of the Class A charge (DOB in caption, trial testimony about age, jury instruction requiring age element) and thus appellate counsel’s omission did not prejudice the outcome.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not arguing charging information omitted the age element elevating child molesting to Class A | Miller: omission was obvious on the face of the record; counsel should have raised it and it was stronger than issues raised | State: Miller had notice (DOB in caption, trial testimony, jury instruction). Failure to object at trial required showing fundamental error; no prejudice shown | Appellate counsel not ineffective; no fundamental error or prejudice—conviction and sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (established two-part ineffective assistance test)
- Brown v. State, 929 N.E.2d 204 (failure to preserve claim requires showing fundamental error)
- Hayden v. State, 19 N.E.3d 831 (charging instrument must give defendant notice of charges)
- Young v. State, 30 N.E.3d 719 (defendant must have clear notice of charges; ancient doctrine on indictment notice)
- Reed v. State, 856 N.E.2d 1189 (post-conviction collateral-relief scope limited; burden on petitioner)
- Timberlake v. State, 753 N.E.2d 591 (court may dispose of ineffectiveness claims on prejudice ground)