940 N.E.2d 841
Ind. Ct. App.2010Background
- Appellant-petitioner Dwayne Rhoiney challenges the post-conviction court's denial of relief from his murder, criminal confinement, and handgun-offense convictions.
- The trial court originally sentenced Rhoiney to 55 years for murder, 10 years for criminal confinement, and 1 year for carrying a handgun, to be served consecutively.
- Rhoiney contends appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising the issue of the imposition of consecutive sentences on direct appeal.
- The appellate court held that the trial court supplied no aggravating circumstances to justify consecutive sentences where the presumptive sentences were imposed, and that victim impact was not a valid aggravator in this context.
- The court determined appellate counsel's performance fell below objective standards, resulting in prejudice, and reversed and remanded for resentencing.
- The opinion discusses appropriate standards for ineffective-assistance claims and the proper handling of consecutive-sentencing justification on the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was appellate counsel ineffective for not raising consecutive sentences on direct appeal? | Rhoiney: failure to raise issue denied appeal relief. | State: discretion to impose consecutive sentences; no error in trial record. | Yes; appellate counsel ineffective; remanded for resentencing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strowmatt v. State, 779 N.E.2d 971 (Ind.Ct.App. 2002) (preponderance standard and burden on post-conviction relief)
- Ben-Yisrayl v. State, 738 N.E.2d 253 (Ind.2000) (two-prong ineffective-assistance framework; strategy not rebutted by prejudice)
- Bieghler v. State, 690 N.E.2d 188 (Ind.1997) (categories of appellate ineffectiveness; deference to counsel strategy)
- Timberlake v. State, 753 N.E.2d 591 (Ind.2001) (deference to strategic choices of counsel)
- Diaz v. State, 839 N.E.2d 1277 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (record must show balancing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances)
- Wentz v. State, 766 N.E.2d 351 (Ind.2002) (concurrent sentences when aggravators and mitigators are in equipoise)
- Davenport v. State, 689 N.E.2d 1226 (Ind.1997) (explanation required for victim-impact evidence used as an aggravator)
- Harris v. State, 749 N.E.2d 57 (Ind.Ct.App.2001) (record must state basis for aggravators in consecutive-sentence decision)
- Neale v. State, 826 N.E.2d 635 (Ind.2005) (crucial consideration of the weight of criminal history in aggravation)