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.






APPELLANT PRO SE: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:

TIMOTHY HUFFMAN   GREGORY F. ZOELLER  
Branchville, Indiana   Attorney General of Indiana  

   IAN MCLEAN  
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana



IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA



TIMOTHY HUFFMAN, )
)
Appellant-Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) No. 82A01-1008-CR-452
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Respondent. )




APPEAL FROM THE VANDERBURGH CIRCUIT COURT
The Honorable Carl A. Heldt, Judge
Cause No. 82C01-0610-FA-1079



February 24, 2011

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

BARNES, Judge
                                                            Case Summary
Timothy Huffman appeals the post-conviction court.s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief.  We affirm.
Issues
Huffman raises two issues, which we restate as:
I. whether the State failed to abide by an agreement to make no sentencing recommendation at his sentencing hearing; and



II. whether he was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel.



Facts
   In October 2006, the State charged Huffman with conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine as a Class A felony.  In June 2007, the State filed an amended information charging Huffman with manufacturing methamphetamine as a Class B felony and possession of methamphetamine as a Class D felony.  In August 2007, on the first day of his trial, Huffman pled guilty to the charges set forth in the amended information.  At the guilty plea hearing, the trial court stated,

Download 02241101mpb.pdf

Indiana Law