Massey v. State
955 N.E.2d 247
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Massey shot and killed his girlfriend, Mitchell, after she told him their relationship was over and he needed to move out.
- Massey was charged with murder; he argued he acted under sudden heat and requested a voluntary manslaughter instruction.
- The trial court gave a voluntary manslaughter instruction; the jury convicted Massey of murder and he received a 55-year presumptive sentence.
- On direct appeal, the conviction was affirmed; post-conviction relief was denied; Massey then appealed the PCR denial.
- Massey claims ineffective assistance: trial counsel failed to secure proper manslaughter instructions; appellate counsel failed to pursue sentencing–related issues.
- The court held the manslaughter instruction was erroneous but Massey was not entitled to it, and thus no prejudice; appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise sentencing issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was trial counsel ineffective re: manslaughter instruction? | Massey asserts counsel failed to ensure correct law on voluntary manslaughter was conveyed. | State contends evidence did not require a manslaughter instruction; no prejudice. | No ineffective assistance; no entitlement to manslaughter instruction due to lack of serious sudden-heat provocation. |
| Was appellate counsel ineffective for not raising sentencing issue? | Appeals should have challenged the presumptive sentence based on improper aggravator/mitigator balancing. | Issue not obvious or strong on the record; not clearly stronger than raised issues. | No ineffective assistance; sentencing issue not significant or obvious on the record. |
Key Cases Cited
- Eichelberger v. State, 852 N.E.2d 631 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (sudden heat not an element; due process requires absence proof when argued)
- Suprenant v. State, 925 N.E.2d 1280 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (any evidence of sudden heat justifies instruction; words alone insufficient)
- Dearman v. State, 743 N.E.2d 757 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (provocation must obscure reason of ordinary person; substantial evidence needed)
- Wooley v. State, 716 N.E.2d 919 (Ind. 1999) (significance of aggravators varies; remand if improper weighting shown)
- Laughner v. State, 769 N.E.2d 1147 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (improper aggravators may require remand depending on mitigating factors)