Mark Bonds v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 49A02-1608-PC-1943

Background

In 2010, Mark Bonds (then 24) was accused of sexually assaulting a 13‑year‑old girl (D.C.) in the family apartment; forensic testing found spermatozoa and amylase consistent with Bonds and his DNA on the victim and Bonds’ hands. Bonds was charged with multiple counts of child molesting and related offenses; after a mistrial and retrial he was convicted on multiple child‑molesting counts and sentenced to concurrent 30‑year terms with part suspended and sex‑offender probation.
Bonds’s direct appeal challenging sufficiency of the evidence was rejected; his conviction was affirmed. He later filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief (PCR) alleging trial‑level errors, prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC), and seeking additional DNA testing.
The postconviction court denied his requests for production of DNA, summary judgment, subpoenas, and ultimately denied the PCR petition after an evidentiary hearing in which Bonds presented exhibits but no witness testimony and did not introduce his trial transcript or counsel’s affidavit.
On appeal from the PCR denial, the Court of Appeals considered (1) whether freestanding claims of trial error and prosecutorial misconduct were available in PCR, (2) alleged IAC (failure to investigate, call witnesses, object during closing), and (3) whether the court erred in denying additional DNA testing.
The appellate court affirmed: Bonds waived freestanding claims that were available at direct appeal, failed to prove IAC because he offered no evidence outside the trial record (did not call counsel or submit trial transcript), and failed to meet statutory prima facie requirements for new DNA testing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Availability of freestanding trial‑error/prosecutorial‑misconduct claims in PCR	Bonds argued trial evidence admission and prosecutorial misconduct (false documents, incomplete chain of custody, perjured testimony) warranted PCR relief	State argued those claims were available at direct appeal and thus not cognizable as freestanding PCR claims	Court held claims were waived for PCR because they were available on direct appeal; characterizing them as "fundamental error" does not revive them
Ineffective assistance—failure to investigate	Bonds claimed trial counsel failed to reasonably investigate and would have uncovered exculpatory evidence	State emphasized lack of evidence at PCR about what additional investigation would have produced and that counsel was not presented to rebut	Court held Bonds failed Strickland’s deficient‑performance and prejudice elements because he presented no proof beyond assertions and did not call counsel or submit affidavits/transcript
Ineffective assistance—witness selection and failure to object	Bonds argued counsel erred in not calling certain witnesses and not objecting to prosecutor’s closing statements about DNA/amylase	State contended witness choices are strategic and objection failure cannot be assessed absent trial record or counsel testimony; prosecutor’s closing not perjury	Court held these are strategic decisions; without counsel testimony or trial transcript Bonds did not overcome presumption of effective assistance and could not show objection would have been sustained or prejudicial
Motion for additional DNA testing	Bonds sought retesting to contradict prior DNA expert testimony and obtain exculpatory results	State argued Bonds did not meet statutory prima facie requirements showing new testing would be more probative or likely to produce exculpatory results	Court held Bonds failed to show testing would be more discriminating or likely to contradict prior results or that exculpatory results would have changed prosecution/conviction; denial affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑pronged ineffective assistance test: deficient performance + prejudice)
Passwater v. State, 989 N.E.2d 766 (Ind. 2013) (PCR petitioner bears burden by preponderance; appellate standard of review)
Massey v. State, 955 N.E.2d 247 (Ind. 2011) (rigorous review of PCR denials; petitioner must show evidence leads unerringly to opposite conclusion)
McKnight v. State, 1 N.E.3d 193 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (limits on PCR—issues must be unknown or unavailable on direct appeal; need to show what further investigation would have produced)
Mitchell v. State, 946 N.E.2d 640 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (importance of offering trial record at PCR; trial transcript may be judicially noticed but petitioner bears burden)
Stephenson v. State, 864 N.E.2d 1022 (Ind. 2007) (issues not preserved at trial and not raised on direct appeal cannot be asserted as freestanding PCR claims)