Cronic presumption in Indiana

2018The Court observed: "Apart from circumstances of that magnitude, however, there is generally no basis for finding a Sixth Amendment violation unless the accused can show how specific errors of counsel undermined the reliability of the finding of guilt." Id. at 659 n. 26, 104 S.Ct. 2039 . 9 We acknowledge that the Seventh Circuit has applied the second Cronic exception in cases similar to Lewis's.

2012More importantly, as noted by the State, since Christian was decided, the United States Supreme Court has explained that for the Cronic presumption of prejudice to be applicable, counsel’s failure to test the prosecution’s case “must be complete.” Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685, 697 (2002) (emphasis added) (citing Cronic, 466 U.S. at 659 ) (noting that presumption of prejudice will apply only “if counsel entirely fails to subject the prosecution’s case to meaningful adversarial testing.”) (emphasis added).

2017And Hamilton states that Jaffe “struggled with the law governing Hamilton’s case” and cites two pages in the transcript as proof that the trial court “needed to help and assist him” and that Jaffe “admitted on record that he needed to review the rules.” Id. [15] Hamilton has not demonstrated that these alleged deficiencies warrant the application of the Cronic presumption, which, again, is reserved for cases involving “limited circumstances of extreme magnitude.” See Conner, 711 N.E.2d at 1254 .

2017And Hamilton states that Jaffe “struggled with the law governing Hamilton’s case” and cites two pages in the transcript as proof that the trial court “needed to help and assist him” and that Jaffe “admitted on record that he needed to review the rules.” Id. [15] Hamilton has not demonstrated that these alleged deficiencies warrant the application of the Cronic presumption, which, again, is reserved for cases involving “limited circumstances of extreme magnitude.” See Conner, 711 N.E.2d at 1254 .

1999The posteonviction court did not enter findings on the Cronic claim; accordingly, no deference to the trial court’s conclusion is due under Spranger v. State, 650 N.E.2d 1117,1119-20 (Ind.1995).

1999The posteonviction court did not enter findings on the Cronic claim; accordingly, no deference to the trial court’s conclusion is due under Spranger v. State, 650 N.E.2d 1117,1119-20 (Ind.1995).

2001There are three circumstances under which a Cronic claim may be made: (1) there is a complete denial of counsel; (2) counsel entirely fails to subject the State's case to meaningful adversarial testing; and (3) situations where surrounding circumstances are such that, "although counsel is available to assist the accused during trial, the likelihood that any lawyer, even a fully competent one, could provide effective assistance is so small that a presumption of prejudice is appropriate without inquiry into the actual conduct of the trial." Minnick v. State, 698 N.E.2d 745, 752 (Ind. 1998) (quot

2001There are three circumstances under which a Cronic claim may be made: (1) there is a complete denial of counsel; (2) counsel entirely fails to subject the State's case to meaningful adversarial testing; and (3) situations where surrounding circumstances are such that, "although counsel is available to assist the accused during trial, the likelihood that any lawyer, even a fully competent one, could provide effective assistance is so small that a presumption of prejudice is appropriate without inquiry into the actual conduct of the trial." Minnick v. State, 698 N.E.2d 745, 752 (Ind. 1998) (quot

2018See Miller v. Martin , 481 F.3d 468 , 472 (7th Cir. 2007) ; Patrasso v. Nelson , 121 F.3d 297 , 303-05 (7th Cir. 1997).

2017And Hamilton states that Jaffe “struggled with the law governing Hamilton’s case” and cites two pages in the transcript as proof that the trial court “needed to help and assist him” and that Jaffe “admitted on record that he needed to review the rules.” Id. [15] Hamilton has not demonstrated that these alleged deficiencies warrant the application of the Cronic presumption, which, again, is reserved for cases involving “limited circumstances of extreme magnitude.” See Conner, 711 N.E.2d at 1254 .

2017And Hamilton states that Jaffe “struggled with the law governing Hamilton’s case” and cites two pages in the transcript as proof that the trial court “needed to help and assist him” and that Jaffe “admitted on record that he needed to review the rules.” Id. [15] Hamilton has not demonstrated that these alleged deficiencies warrant the application of the Cronic presumption, which, again, is reserved for cases involving “limited circumstances of extreme magnitude.” See Conner, 711 N.E.2d at 1254 .

2017“We afford counsel considerable discretion in choosing strategy and tactics, and ‘[i]solated mistakes, poor strategy, inexperience, and instances of bad judgment do not necessarily render representation ineffective,’” State v. Hollin, 970 N.E.2d 147, 151 (Ind. 2012) (quoting Timberlake v. State, 753 N.E.2d 591, 603 (Ind. 2001)). [12] Acuna-Hinojosa first argues that a Cronic violation occurred.

2017“We afford counsel considerable discretion in choosing strategy and tactics, and ‘[i]solated mistakes, poor strategy, inexperience, and instances of bad judgment do not necessarily render representation ineffective,’” State v. Hollin, 970 N.E.2d 147, 151 (Ind. 2012) (quoting Timberlake v. State, 753 N.E.2d 591, 603 (Ind. 2001)). [12] Acuna-Hinojosa first argues that a Cronic violation occurred.

2017“We afford counsel considerable discretion in choosing strategy and tactics, and ‘[i]solated mistakes, poor strategy, inexperience, and instances of bad judgment do not necessarily render representation ineffective,’” State v. Hollin, 970 N.E.2d 147, 151 (Ind. 2012) (quoting Timberlake v. State, 753 N.E.2d 591, 603 (Ind. 2001)). [12] Acuna-Hinojosa first argues that a Cronic violation occurred.

2017“We afford counsel considerable discretion in choosing strategy and tactics, and ‘[i]solated mistakes, poor strategy, inexperience, and instances of bad judgment do not necessarily render representation ineffective,’” State v. Hollin, 970 N.E.2d 147, 151 (Ind. 2012) (quoting Timberlake v. State, 753 N.E.2d 591, 603 (Ind. 2001)). [12] Acuna-Hinojosa first argues that a Cronic violation occurred.

2015Cronic, 466 U.S. at 660-61 .8 8 While we note that Wilson’s defense resulted in Jenkins being acquitted of one Class A felony count of child molesting and Class A misdemeanor contributing to the delinquency of a minor, our Supreme Court has said, “We do not determine adequacy of representation on the basis of whether or not an acquittal was won.” Dillon v. State, 448 N.E.2d 21, 27 (Ind. 1983).

2015Cronic, 466 U.S. at 660-61 .8 8 While we note that Wilson’s defense resulted in Jenkins being acquitted of one Class A felony count of child molesting and Class A misdemeanor contributing to the delinquency of a minor, our Supreme Court has said, “We do not determine adequacy of representation on the basis of whether or not an acquittal was won.” Dillon v. State, 448 N.E.2d 21, 27 (Ind. 1983).

2012See Cooke v. State, 977 A.2d 803, 850 (Del. 2009); State v. Carter, 14 P.3d 1138, 1148 (Kan. 2000); Jones v. State, 877 P.2d 1052, 1057 (Nev. 1994); State v. Anaya, 592 A.2d 1142, 1143 (N.H. 1991).

2012See Cooke v. State, 977 A.2d 803, 850 (Del. 2009); State v. Carter, 14 P.3d 1138, 1148 (Kan. 2000); Jones v. State, 877 P.2d 1052, 1057 (Nev. 1994); State v. Anaya, 592 A.2d 1142, 1143 (N.H. 1991).

2012More importantly, as noted by the State, since Christian was decided, the United States Supreme Court has explained that for the Cronic presumption of prejudice to be applicable, counsel’s failure to test the prosecution’s case “must be complete.” Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685, 697 (2002) (emphasis added) (citing Cronic, 466 U.S. at 659 ) (noting that presumption of prejudice will apply only “if counsel entirely fails to subject the prosecution’s case to meaningful adversarial testing.”) (emphasis added).

2012More importantly, as noted by the State, since Christian was decided, the United States Supreme Court has explained that for the Cronic presumption of prejudice to be applicable, counsel’s failure to test the prosecution’s case “must be complete.” Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685, 697 (2002) (emphasis added) (citing Cronic, 466 U.S. at 659 ) (noting that presumption of prejudice will apply only “if counsel entirely fails to subject the prosecution’s case to meaningful adversarial testing.”) (emphasis added).

2012See Cooke v. State, 977 A.2d 803, 850 (Del. 2009); State v. Carter, 14 P.3d 1138, 1148 (Kan. 2000); Jones v. State, 877 P.2d 1052, 1057 (Nev. 1994); State v. Anaya, 592 A.2d 1142, 1143 (N.H. 1991).

2012See Cooke v. State, 977 A.2d 803, 850 (Del. 2009); State v. Carter, 14 P.3d 1138, 1148 (Kan. 2000); Jones v. State, 877 P.2d 1052, 1057 (Nev. 1994); State v. Anaya, 592 A.2d 1142, 1143 (N.H. 1991).

2012See Banks v. State, 884 N.E.2d 362, 368 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (citing Holman, 314 F.3d at 839-40 (concluding that two-part Strickland analysis, not Cronic’s presumption of prejudice applied where trial counsel, without client’s approval, 12 acknowledged that his client was guilty of one of numerous charges to bolster his case for innocence on the remaining charges)).

2012See Banks v. State, 884 N.E.2d 362, 368 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (citing Holman, 314 F.3d at 839-40 (concluding that two-part Strickland analysis, not Cronic’s presumption of prejudice applied where trial counsel, without client’s approval, 12 acknowledged that his client was guilty of one of numerous charges to bolster his case for innocence on the remaining charges)).

2012As the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals noted in United States v. Holman, 314 F.3d 837 , 839 n.1 (7th Cir. 2002), “Cronic only applies if counsel fails to contest any portion of the prosecution’s case; if counsel mounts a partial defense, Strickland is the more appropriate test.” Here, Mr. Mohler clearly did not fail to contest any portion of the prosecution’s case.

2012See Banks v. State, 884 N.E.2d 362, 368 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (citing Holman, 314 F.3d at 839-40 (concluding that two-part Strickland analysis, not Cronic’s presumption of prejudice applied where trial counsel, without client’s approval, 12 acknowledged that his client was guilty of one of numerous charges to bolster his case for innocence on the remaining charges)).

2012See Cooke v. State, 977 A.2d 803, 850 (Del. 2009); State v. Carter, 14 P.3d 1138, 1148 (Kan. 2000); Jones v. State, 877 P.2d 1052, 1057 (Nev. 1994); State v. Anaya, 592 A.2d 1142, 1143 (N.H. 1991).

2012See Cooke v. State, 977 A.2d 803, 850 (Del. 2009); State v. Carter, 14 P.3d 1138, 1148 (Kan. 2000); Jones v. State, 877 P.2d 1052, 1057 (Nev. 1994); State v. Anaya, 592 A.2d 1142, 1143 (N.H. 1991).

2012See Cooke v. State, 977 A.2d 803, 850 (Del. 2009); State v. Carter, 14 P.3d 1138, 1148 (Kan. 2000); Jones v. State, 877 P.2d 1052, 1057 (Nev. 1994); State v. Anaya, 592 A.2d 1142, 1143 (N.H. 1991).

2012See Cooke v. State, 977 A.2d 803, 850 (Del. 2009); State v. Carter, 14 P.3d 1138, 1148 (Kan. 2000); Jones v. State, 877 P.2d 1052, 1057 (Nev. 1994); State v. Anaya, 592 A.2d 1142, 1143 (N.H. 1991).

1998Kimmelman, 477 U.S. at 395 n. 2, 106 S.Ct. at 2593-94 , 91 L.Ed.2d at 333 (Powell, J., concurring).

1998Kimmelman, 477 U.S. at 395 n. 2, 106 S.Ct. at 2593-94 , 91 L.Ed.2d at 333 (Powell, J., concurring).

1997We recently discussed the operation of the Cronic exception to Strickland (and its narrowness) in Games v. State, 684 N.E.2d 466, 478-80 (Ind.1997), reh'g granted on other grounds, 690 N.E.2d 211 (Ind.1997).

1997Federal courts have uniformly held that the circumstances to which Cronic’s presumption applies are “very limited in number," Nielsen v. Hopkins, 58 F.3d 1331, 1335 (8th Cir.1995), applying only when "the defendant was in effect denied any meaningful assistance at all," Chadwick v. Green, 740 F.2d 897, 901 (11th Cir.1984), and that the "burden of proof under Cronic is a very heavy one.” Stone v. Dugger, 837 F.2d 1477, 1479 (11th Cir.1988), cert. denied 489 U.S. 1071 , 109 S.Ct. 1354 , 103 L.Ed.2d 821 (1989).

1997Federal courts have uniformly held that the circumstances to which Cronic’s presumption applies are “very limited in number," Nielsen v. Hopkins, 58 F.3d 1331, 1335 (8th Cir.1995), applying only when "the defendant was in effect denied any meaningful assistance at all," Chadwick v. Green, 740 F.2d 897, 901 (11th Cir.1984), and that the "burden of proof under Cronic is a very heavy one.” Stone v. Dugger, 837 F.2d 1477, 1479 (11th Cir.1988), cert. denied 489 U.S. 1071 , 109 S.Ct. 1354 , 103 L.Ed.2d 821 (1989).