Paula Lynn Tackett v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
35A02-1704-PC-888
| Ind. Ct. App. | Sep 28, 2017Background
- In October 2011 police found materials and evidence indicating multiple methamphetamine labs in a residence; mail at the house was addressed to Paula Tackett.
- Tackett admitted to police that her husband manufactured meth in the home and that she purchased lye and pseudoephedrine for him on multiple dates.
- Tackett was charged with dealing in methamphetamine (Class A felony) and conspiracy to commit dealing (Class B felony); a jury convicted her and she received concurrent 30- and 10-year sentences.
- At trial Tackett wore navy jail clothing (a shirt marked “HCJ” and navy pants); counsel had told her to get civilian clothes but she did not obtain them and had reportedly gained weight since arrest.
- Tackett raised a direct appeal (unsuccessful) and then filed a post-conviction petition claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel (for not objecting to jail clothing and hearsay) and ineffective assistance of appellate counsel (for not raising the jail-clothing issue on appeal).
- The post-conviction court denied relief; the Court of Appeals affirmed, finding no deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial counsel ineffective for not objecting to Tackett wearing jail clothing at trial | Failure to object deprived Tackett of a fair trial and violated Estelle/Lyda principle against compelled identifiable prison clothing | Tackett was not compelled to wear the jail shirt; alternative clothing was available and any impact was minor given her admissions | No ineffective assistance; not compelled and any error harmless in light of strong evidence and admissions |
| Trial counsel ineffective for not objecting to alleged hearsay (detective testimony about a report of manufacturing) | Counsel’s failure to object allowed improper hearsay to influence jury | Tackett herself admitted to knowledge and participation (purchasing ingredients), so the testimony was cumulative | No ineffective assistance; no prejudice because testimony was cumulative of Tackett’s admissions |
| Appellate counsel ineffective for not raising the jail-clothing issue on direct appeal | Appellate counsel unreasonably omitted a meritorious issue (trial clothing) | Because the jail-clothing claim was not reversible error, failure to raise it was not prejudicial | No ineffective assistance; absence of a meritorious issue means no prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501 (1976) (state may not compel a defendant to wear identifiable prison clothing at trial)
- Lyda v. State, 395 N.E.2d 776 (Ind. 1979) (no reversible error where defendant voluntarily wore jail attire and alternatives were available; jurors admonished)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- McCary v. State, 761 N.E.2d 389 (Ind. 2002) (applying Strickland standard in Indiana)