Robert Payton v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 20A03-1602-PC-433

In 2002 Robert Payton pleaded guilty to sexual offenses after admitting he and a companion forced two women to perform sexual acts; plea included a 75-year cap and resulted in an aggregate executed sentence of 60 years.
Payton later filed post-conviction petitions claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel, seeking appointment of post-conviction counsel, and requesting a subpoena for his co-defendant.
His principal ineffectiveness claim was that trial counsel failed to seek reduction or dismissal of charges based on alleged double jeopardy risks from overlapping charges/aggravators, and that he would not have pleaded guilty if so advised.
The post-conviction court denied relief, refused to appoint counsel, and denied the subpoena; Payton appealed the denial of post-conviction relief.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding double jeopardy had not attached at the charging/plea stage, Payton presented no objective evidence he would have rejected the plea, there is no constitutional right to counsel in post-conviction proceedings, and the subpoena was properly denied because Payton had already admitted the factual basis for victims’ injuries.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Payton)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Ineffective assistance of trial counsel for not moving to reduce/dismiss charges on double jeopardy grounds	Counsel should have sought reductions/dismissals because multiple charges arose from same facts; Payton would not have pleaded if informed	Double jeopardy had not attached pre-plea; no evidence counsel's performance was deficient or that Payton would have rejected plea beyond his conclusory statement	Affirmed: No ineffective assistance; double jeopardy not applicable and Payton failed to prove prejudice
Denial of appointment of post-conviction counsel	Payton argued denial infringed state and federal right to counsel	State relied on precedent that no right to counsel exists in post-conviction proceedings	Affirmed: No right to counsel in post-conviction proceedings; denial proper
Denial of subpoena for co-defendant	Subpoena sought to show victims’ injuries did not occur—would impeach admissions	State noted Payton pleaded guilty and admitted factual basis; impeachment of own admission improper	Affirmed: Court did not abuse discretion in denying subpoena

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (defines ineffective-assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
Timberlake v. State, 753 N.E.2d 591 (Ind. 2001) (standards and limits for post-conviction relief)
Hall v. State, 849 N.E.2d 466 (Ind. 2006) (post-conviction court as sole judge of witness credibility)
Bryant v. State, 660 N.E.2d 290 (Ind. 1995) (double jeopardy discussion; jury impaneling as trigger)
Pickens v. State, 751 N.E.2d 331 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (double jeopardy attachment explained)
Segura v. State, 749 N.E.2d 496 (Ind. 2001) (defendant's conclusory claim insufficient to show he would have rejected plea)
Baum v. State, 533 N.E.2d 1200 (Ind. 1989) (no right to counsel in post-conviction proceedings)