Vance R. Pace v. State of Indiana
2013 Ind. App. LEXIS 52
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Pace was convicted in 2004 of dealing in amphetamine (Class B) and being a serious violent felon (SVF) in possession of a firearm, with an habitual-offender finding; sentences were to run consecutively.
- The trial included bifurcation of the habitual-offender phase, but Pace did not request bifurcation between the dealing and SVF charges.
- On direct appeal (2005), the court affirmed, stating there was no fundamental error and noting Hines v. State (which would require bifurcation) was not applicable since no bifurcation request was made.
- In 2010 Pace filed a post-conviction relief petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel for failing to move to bifurcate the dealing and SVF charges and for other related errors.
- The post-conviction court conducted a hearing, heard testimony from trial and appellate counsel, and ultimately denied relief; Pace appealed.
- The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed, concluding trial counsel’s failure to file a bifurcation motion was deficient and prejudicial, and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PCR court erred denying Pace’s ineffectiveness claims. | Pace contends trial counsel’s failure to bifurcate violated Hines and prejudiced the defense. | Garcia argues bifurcation was a strategic decision with no demonstrated prejudice. | Yes; trial counsel’s failure to bifurcate was deficient and prejudicial; remand for a new trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hines v. State, 801 N.E.2d 634 (Ind. 2004) (adopted standard for bifurcation when SVF and another felony are charged together; prejudice from prior-conviction evidence)
- Hines v. State, 801 N.E.2d 634 (Ind. 2004) (reversed on bifurcation grounds; remanded for new trial)
- Moore v. State, 872 N.E.2d 617 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (motion-failure ineffective-assistance standard; motions would need to be successful)
- Davidson v. State, 763 N.E.2d 441 (Ind. 2002) (Strickland standard; prejudice requires a reasonable probability of different outcome)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes the deficient performance and prejudice prongs for ineffective assistance)
- Grinstead v. State, 845 N.E.2d 1027 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (probability standard for prejudice undermining confidence in outcome)
- Spearman v. State, 744 N.E.2d 545 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (prejudice from SVF-entry evidence; focus on probative value vs. prejudice)
- Gray v. State, 841 N.E.2d 1210 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (post-conviction reversal for ineffective assistance related to bifurcation)