ineffective assistance of counsel claim in Indiana

2020“A reviewing court will not second-guess the propriety of trial counsel’s tactics.” Davidson v. State, 763 N.E.2d 441, 446 (Ind. 2002) (citation and quotation marks omitted). “[T]rial strategy is not subject to attack through an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, unless the strategy is so deficient or unreasonable as to fall outside of the objective standard of reasonableness.” Autrey v. State, 700 N.E.2d 1140, 1141 (Ind. 1998).

2019“Counsel is given ‘significant deference in choosing a strategy which, at the time and under the circumstances, he or she deems best.’” Benefield v. State, 945 N.E.2d 791, 799 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (quoting Potter v. State, 684 N.E.2d 1127, 1133 (Ind. 1997)). “‘[T]rial strategy is not subject to attack through an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, unless the strategy is so deficient or unreasonable as to fall outside of the objective standard of reasonableness.’” Id. (quoting Autrey v. State, 700 N.E.2d 1140, 1141 (Ind. 1998)). [15] Churchward chose not to pursue a defense that Wilderness

2015See Williams, 706 N.E.2d at 154 (providing that a petitioner’s failure to satisfy either prong will cause the ineffective assistance of counsel claim to fail). 5.

2015See Reed, 866 N.E.2d at 769 (providing that a successful claim for ineffective assistance of counsel must satisfy two components, i.e., deficient performance and prejudice); Williams, 706 N.E.2d at 154 (providing that a petitioner’s failure to satisfy either prong will cause the ineffective assistance of counsel claim to fail).

2020Dobbins v. State, 721 N.E.2d 867, 873 (Ind. 1999) (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 ).

2019Dobbins v. State, 721 N.E.2d 867, 873 (Ind. 1999) (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 ).

2020Helton, 907 N.E.2d at 1024 .

2019See Helton v. State, 907 N.E.2d 1020, 1023 (Ind. 2009) (explaining that if we can dismiss an ineffective assistance of counsel claim on the prejudice prong, we need not address whether counsel’s performance was deficient).

2014Bethea v. State, 983 N.E.2d 1134 (Ind. 2013) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)); see also Taylor v. State, 840 N.E.2d 324, 331 (Ind. 2006) (the failure to satisfy either component will cause an ineffective assistance of counsel claim to fail).

2013See also Taylor v. State, 840 N.E.2d 324 (Ind. 2006) (the failure to satisfy either component will cause an ineffective assistance of counsel claim to fail).

2024Ineffective Assistance of Counsel [18] When evaluating an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, we apply the two- part test articulated in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).

2020Section 4 – The post-conviction court did not clearly err in finding that Vicente failed to show that his trial counsel’s assistance was ineffective. [18] When evaluating an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, we apply the two- part test articulated in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).

2020Further, “‘[t]o prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim based upon counsel’s failure to file motions on a defendant’s behalf, the defendant must demonstrate that such motions would have been successful.’” Moore v. State, 872 N.E.2d 617, 621 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (quoting Wales v. State, 768 N.E.2d 513, 523 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied). [13] We have previously concluded that while “[i]t is certainly the case that in some circumstances a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel can be established by showing a failure to suppress evidence,” the petitioner bears the burden o

2020Specifically, we have held that “‘[t]o prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim based upon counsel’s failure to file motions on a defendant’s behalf, the defendant must demonstrate Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-PC-658| December 9, 2020 Page 11 of 14 that such motions would have been successful.’” Moore, 872 N.E.2d at 621 (quoting Wales v. State, 768 N.E.2d 513, 523 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), on reh’g, 774 N.E.2d 116 , trans. denied). [23] Here, at the post-conviction hearing, James acknowledged that he and Butler had discussed the possibility of filing a motion

2025Ineffective Assistance of Trial Counsel [9] To evaluate a petitioner’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, “we apply the well-established, two-part Strickland test.” 1 Bobadilla v. State, 117 N.E.3d 1272, 1280 (Ind. 2019) (citing Humphrey v. State, 73 N.E.3d 677, 682 (Ind. 2017)).

2025To evaluate a petitioner’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, “we apply the well- Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-PC-277 | January 31, 2025 Page 17 of 34 established, two-part Strickland test.”8 Bobadilla, 117 N.E.3d at 1280 (citing Humphrey, 73 N.E.3d at 682 ).

2025Ineffective Assistance of Trial Counsel [9] To evaluate a petitioner’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, “we apply the well-established, two-part Strickland test.” 1 Bobadilla v. State, 117 N.E.3d 1272, 1280 (Ind. 2019) (citing Humphrey v. State, 73 N.E.3d 677, 682 (Ind. 2017)).

2025To evaluate a petitioner’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, “we apply the well- Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-PC-277 | January 31, 2025 Page 17 of 34 established, two-part Strickland test.”8 Bobadilla, 117 N.E.3d at 1280 (citing Humphrey, 73 N.E.3d at 682 ).

2020Further, “‘[t]o prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim based upon counsel’s failure to file motions on a defendant’s behalf, the defendant must demonstrate that such motions would have been successful.’” Moore v. State, 872 N.E.2d 617, 621 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (quoting Wales v. State, 768 N.E.2d 513, 523 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied). [13] We have previously concluded that while “[i]t is certainly the case that in some circumstances a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel can be established by showing a failure to suppress evidence,” the petitioner bears the burden o

2020Specifically, we have held that “‘[t]o prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim based upon counsel’s failure to file motions on a defendant’s behalf, the defendant must demonstrate Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-PC-658| December 9, 2020 Page 11 of 14 that such motions would have been successful.’” Moore, 872 N.E.2d at 621 (quoting Wales v. State, 768 N.E.2d 513, 523 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), on reh’g, 774 N.E.2d 116 , trans. denied). [23] Here, at the post-conviction hearing, James acknowledged that he and Butler had discussed the possibility of filing a motion

2019Furthermore, “[w]hen an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is based on trial counsel’s failure to make an objection, the appellant must show that a proper objection would have been sustained by the trial court.” Lambert v. State, 743 N.E.2d 719, 732 (Ind. 2001).

2014“When an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is based on the trial counsel’s failure to make an objection, the [petitioner] must show that a proper objection would have been sustained by the trial court.” Lambert v. State, 743 N.E.2d 719, 732 (Ind. 2001), reh’g denied, cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1136 , 122 S. Ct. 1082 (2002).

2003As to Defendant's contention that his counsel should have objected to final Jury instruction no. 8 as violative of his due process rights, we held above that the instruction was not erroneous. "'When an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is based on trial counsel's failure to make an objection, the appellant must show that a proper objection would have been sustained by the trial court'" Lambert v. State, 743 N.E.2d 719, 732 (Ind.2001) (quoting Lloyd v. State, 669 N.E.2d 980, 985 (Ind.1996)).

2001"When an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is based on trial counsel's failure to make an objection, the appellant must show that a proper objection would have been sustained by the trial court." Lloyd v. State, 669 N.E.2d 980, 985 (Ind.1996).

2019“Counsel is given ‘significant deference in choosing a strategy which, at the time and under the circumstances, he or she deems best.’” Benefield v. State, 945 N.E.2d 791, 799 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (quoting Potter v. State, 684 N.E.2d 1127, 1133 (Ind. 1997)). “‘[T]rial strategy is not subject to attack through an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, unless the strategy is so deficient or unreasonable as to fall outside of the objective standard of reasonableness.’” Id. (quoting Autrey v. State, 700 N.E.2d 1140, 1141 (Ind. 1998)). [15] Churchward chose not to pursue a defense that Wilderness

2018It is well settled that choice of defense theory is a matter of trial strategy, and trial strategy “is not subject to attack Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1710-PC-2487 | June 26, 2018 Page 8 of 9 through an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, unless the strategy is so deficient or unreasonable as to fall outside of the objective standard of reasonableness.” Benefield v. State, 945 N.E.2d 791, 799 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).

2020“A reviewing court will not second-guess the propriety of trial counsel’s tactics.” Davidson v. State, 763 N.E.2d 441, 446 (Ind. 2002) (citation and quotation marks omitted). “[T]rial strategy is not subject to attack through an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, unless the strategy is so deficient or unreasonable as to fall outside of the objective standard of reasonableness.” Autrey v. State, 700 N.E.2d 1140, 1141 (Ind. 1998).

2018Counsel is given “‘significant deference in choosing a strategy which, at the time and under the circumstances, he or she deems best.’” Id. (quoting Potter v. State, 684 N.E.2d 1127, 1133 (Ind. 1997)). “‘A reviewing court will not second-guess the propriety of trial counsel’s tactics.’” Id. (quoting Davidson v. State, 763 N.E.2d 441, 446 (Ind. 2002)). “‘[T]rial strategy is not subject to attack through an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, unless the strategy is so deficient or unreasonable as to fall outside of the objective standard of reasonableness.’” Id. (quoting Autrey v. State, 70

2020Garrett v. State, 602 N.E.2d 139, 142 (Ind. 1992).

2016“This is so even when ‘such choices may be subject to criticism or the choice ultimately prove[s] [to be] detrimental to the defendant.’” Id. (quoting Garrett v. State, 602 N.E.2d 139, 142 (Ind. 1992), reh’g denied).

2019“Counsel is given ‘significant deference in choosing a strategy which, at the time and under the circumstances, he or she deems best.’” Benefield v. State, 945 N.E.2d 791, 799 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (quoting Potter v. State, 684 N.E.2d 1127, 1133 (Ind. 1997)). “‘[T]rial strategy is not subject to attack through an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, unless the strategy is so deficient or unreasonable as to fall outside of the objective standard of reasonableness.’” Id. (quoting Autrey v. State, 700 N.E.2d 1140, 1141 (Ind. 1998)). [15] Churchward chose not to pursue a defense that Wilderness

2019“Counsel is given ‘significant deference in choosing a strategy which, at the time and under the circumstances, he or she deems best.’” Benefield v. State, 945 N.E.2d 791, 799 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (quoting Potter v. State, 684 N.E.2d 1127, 1133 (Ind. 1997)). “‘[T]rial strategy is not subject to attack through an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, unless the strategy is so deficient or unreasonable as to fall outside of the objective standard of reasonableness.’” Id. (quoting Autrey v. State, 700 N.E.2d 1140, 1141 (Ind. 1998)). [15] Churchward chose not to pursue a defense that Wilderness

2012Pruitt, 903 N.E.2d at 927 -2S. 24 Therefore, “ ‘[t]o prevail on *76 an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, [the petitioner] must show both deficient performance and resulting prejudice.’ ” Id. at 928 (alterations in original) (quoting Allen, 749 N.E.2d at 1166 ); see also Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 (two-part test for ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims).

2012Pruitt, 903 N.E.2d at 927 -2S. 24 Therefore, “ ‘[t]o prevail on *76 an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, [the petitioner] must show both deficient performance and resulting prejudice.’ ” Id. at 928 (alterations in original) (quoting Allen, 749 N.E.2d at 1166 ); see also Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 (two-part test for ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims).

2026See Bobadilla v. State, 117 N.E.3d 1272, 1279 (Ind. 2019) (citing Ward v. State, 969 N.E.2d 46, 51 (Ind. 2012)) (stating that evaluating a claim that counsel was ineffective requires proof that “counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.”) Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-PC-1682 | May 14, 2026 Page 12 of 16 discussed his own duty to report, repeatedly interrupted PCR counsel while she attempted to make a record of her objection, detailed his prior history of reporting Andis to the Disciplinary Commission, and allegedly raised his voice “numerous time

2012Ward v. State, 969 N.E.2d 46 (Ind.2012) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)); see also Taylor v. State, 840 N.E.2d 324 (Ind.2006) (the failure to satisfy either component will cause an ineffective assistance of counsel claim to fail).

2020To obtain relief on an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, Brown must establish both deficient performance and prejudice, Ben-Yisrayl, 729 N.E.2d at 106 , and, as the State points out, Brown has essentially failed to argue deficient performance.

2019Ben-Yisrayl v. State, 729 N.E.2d 102, 108 (Ind. 2000), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 830 (2001). [33] When an ineffective assistance of counsel claim alleges the failure to present witnesses, the petitioner must offer evidence as to who the witnesses were and what their testimony would have been.

2017Id. [11] The State responds that the Strickland Sixth Amendment right to counsel discussion and, thus, the ineffective assistance of counsel standard are inapplicable in juvenile delinquency adjudications.

2007“The purpose of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is not to critique counsel’s performance, and isolated omissions or errors and bad tactics do not necessarily mean that representation was ineffective.” Grinstead v. State, 845 N.E.2d 1027, 1036 (Ind.2006).

2000See Lowery v. State, 640 N.E.2d at 1042 .

1998Lowery, 640 N.E.2d at 1042 .

2020Ritchie v. State, 875 N.E.2d 706, 714 (Ind. 2007). [11] We evaluate an ineffective assistance of counsel claim with the two-part test articulated in Strickland, 466 U.S. 668 .

2013Hairston properly presented his challenge to the habitual offender finding via an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, and we review it accordingly. 6 evidence to overcome this presumption.” Ritchie v. State, 875 N.E.2d 706, 714 (Ind. 2007).

2019Lee v. State, 694 N.E.2d 719, 722 (Ind. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PC-1598 | April 18, 2019 Page 21 of 25 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1023 (1998).

2018Lee v. State, 694 N.E.2d 719, 722 (Ind. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1023 (1998).

1997Grigsby v. State, 503 N.E.2d 394, 396 (Ind.1987).

1996Grigsby v. State, 503 N.E.2d 394, 396 (Ind.1987).

2012Pruitt, 903 N.E.2d at 927 -2S. 24 Therefore, “ ‘[t]o prevail on *76 an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, [the petitioner] must show both deficient performance and resulting prejudice.’ ” Id. at 928 (alterations in original) (quoting Allen, 749 N.E.2d at 1166 ); see also Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 (two-part test for ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims).

2009Stephenson, 864 N.E.2d at 1046 (citation omitted). 37 Therefore, "[tlo prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, [the petitioner] must show both deficient performance and resulting prejudice." Allen, 749 N.E.2d at 1166 (quoting Williams v. State, 706 N.E.2d 149, 154 (Ind.1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1113 , 120 S.Ct. 1970 , 146 L.Ed.2d 800 (2000)).

2020Talley v. State, 51 N.E.3d 300, 303 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied. 7 At the evidentiary hearing, Lowder introduced into evidence Detective Schemenaur’s notes from David Sr.’s interview.

2020Talley v. State, 51 N.E.3d 300, 303 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied.

2020Id. at 269 . [19] When evaluating a defendant’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, we apply the well-established, two-part test from Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).

2020See, e.g., Hollowell Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MI-1319 | October 30, 2020 Page 11 of 13 v. State, 19 N.E.3d 263, 270 (Ind. 2014) (holding that the petitioner had waived appellate review of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim that he had argued in his post-conviction hearing but had not raised in his post-conviction petition).