Preview:

Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

FILED
Jun 06 2008, 8:34 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

CLERK

APPELLANT PRO SE: CHAD MICHAEL FARRELL Bunker Hill, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: STEVE CARTER Attorney General of Indiana JOBY D. JERRELLS Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
CHAD MICHAEL FARRELL, Appellant-Petitioner, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 02A04-0712-PC-695

APPEAL FROM THE ALLEN SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Frances C. Gull, Judge Cause No. 02D04-0607-PC-79

June 6, 2008 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

BROWN, Judge

Chad Michael Farrell appeals the post-conviction court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. Farrell raises one issue, which we restate as whether he received the effective assistance of trial counsel. 1 We affirm. The relevant facts follow. In 2002, the State charged Farrell with attempted murder, burglary as a class A felony, criminal confinement, and intimidation. Farrell v. State, No. 02A03-0504-CR-144, slip op. at 2 (Ind. Ct. App. Nov. 3, 2005). Farrell agreed to plead guilty to the burglary charge in exchange for the dismissal of the other charges, with the executed portion of the sentence to be capped at the presumptive term of thirty years. Id. at 2-3. The trial court accepted Farrell's guilty plea and sentenced him to an executed term of thirty years. Id. at 3. On direct appeal, Farrell argued that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him, and we affirmed. Id. at 2. Farrell filed a petition for post-conviction relief and later an amended petition. Farrell alleged that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel because his trial counsel did not request a change of venue, did not address threats that Farrell received from officers in the jail, withheld information from Farrell necessary to his defense and

Farrell's pro se brief is full of references to allegations that are unsupported by the record. We remind Farrell that this court may not consider matters outside of the record. Boczar v. Meridian St. Found., 749 N.E.2d 87, 92 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). Additionally, Farrell's twenty-six page argument contains almost no paragraph divisions, few transitions between arguments, and a lack of organization and developed argument. Pro se litigants are held to the same standard as attorneys admitted to the practice of law with regard to adhering to our rules. Smith v. State, 822 N.E.2d 193, 203 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied. Our rules require that the argument be supported by cogent reasoning. See Ind. Appellate Rule 46. Farrell's brief fails in this regard. Nonetheless, given our preference for deciding cases on their merits, see Downs v. State, 827 N.E.2d 646, 651 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied, we have tried to discern Farrell's arguments and address them herein.

1

2

Farrell's understanding of the case, failed to request a reduction of bail, did not allow Farrell to attend depositions, told Farrell what to say during the guilty plea hearing, posed as a psychiatrist by telling the trial court that Farrell was competent during the guilty plea hearing, coerced Farrell into pleading guilty, informed Farrell that he would get a sentence less that the one imposed, and failed to file for a sentence modification. After an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law denying Farrell's petition. The trial court found that Farrell had failed to present evidence on many of his claims, that he had failed to prove that his trial counsel's performance was deficient, and that he failed to prove that he was prejudiced by the allegedly deficient performance. Appellant's Appendix at 32-38. Before discussing Farrell's allegations of error, we note the general standard under which we review a post-conviction court's denial of a petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner in a post-conviction proceeding bears the burden of establishing grounds for relief by a preponderance of the evidence. Fisher v. State, 810 N.E.2d 674, 679 (Ind. 2004); Ind. Post-Conviction Rule 1(5). When appealing from the denial of post-

conviction relief, the petitioner stands in the position of one appealing from a negative judgment. 810 N.E.2d at 679. On review, we will not reverse the judgment unless the evidence as a whole unerringly and unmistakably leads to a conclusion opposite that reached by the post-conviction court. Id. Further, the post-conviction court in this case entered findings of fact and conclusions thereon in accordance with Indiana PostConviction Rule 1(6). Id. "A post-conviction court's findings and judgment will be 3

reversed only upon a showing of clear error

Download Chad Michael Farrell v. State of Indiana.pdf

Indiana Law