WRIGHT v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Darrell Cortez Williams Wright (“Wright”) appeals the post-conviction court's denial of his amended petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, Wright raises the following restated issue: whether the post-conviction court erred when it summarily denied his petition on the pleadings. Concluding that the court did err by summarily denying his petition, we reverse the post-conviction court's judgment and remand for further proceeding.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On March 5, 2018, the State charged Wright with Level 2 felony dealing in a narcotic drug, Level 3 felony possession of a narcotic drug, Level 3 felony dealing in cocaine, Level 5 felony possession of cocaine, Level 6 felony resisting law enforcement, Level 6 felony obstruction of justice, and Level 6 felony maintaining a common nuisance. The State later dismissed the charge of Level 6 felony maintaining a common nuisance. During the trial proceedings, Wright was represented by a public defender. Prior to trial, the State offered two plea agreements to Wright, which he did not accept. The case proceeded to trial, and the jury found Wright guilty as charged. Wright was sentenced to thirty-seven years executed in the Indiana Department of Correction (“the DOC”). Wright filed a direct appeal, and a panel of this court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for resentencing to cap Wright's aggregate sentence for his dealing convictions at thirty-two years. On remand, the trial court resentenced Wright accordingly, resulting in an overall aggregate sentence of thirty-four years for all of his convictions.

[3] On January 21, 2022, through counsel, Wright filed a petition for post-conviction relief, challenging his convictions and sentence. The proceedings were stayed to allow Wright's counsel to investigate Wright's case. In November 2022, Wright's counsel withdrew. Wright then requested the appointment of the State Public Defender to represent him in the post-conviction proceedings, and the trial court granted this request. On May 12, 2023, the State responded to Wright's original petition with a general denial and raised the affirmative defenses of waiver, res judicata, and laches. On June 15, 2023, the State Public Defender appeared on behalf of Wright,¹ and filed a request for a stay of the proceedings to allow counsel time to investigate Wright's claims and pursue post-conviction remedies and a request to amend the original petition for post-conviction relief. On June 19, 2023, the post-conviction court granted a stay of the proceedings and the request to amend the petition. On June 26, 2024, the stay was lifted.

[4] On August 2, 2024, the State Public Defender, on behalf of Wright, filed an amended petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that he received ineffective assistance of his trial counsel and including affidavits and exhibits. Wright specifically asserted that his trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to adequately consult with or advise Wright regarding the State's plea agreement offers and his sentencing exposure if he proceeded to trial. Wright also contended that his trial counsel was ineffective because counsel failed to present any mitigating evidence at sentencing and instead relied solely upon the presentence investigation report. The post-conviction court summarily denied Wright's amended petition on August 12, 2024, notwithstanding that the State had not yet filed a response and its thirty-day response period had not expired.² In its order summarily denying the petition, the post-conviction court included findings and conclusions, which clearly reflected that the post-conviction court considered the affidavits and other evidence outside of the face of the pleadings. On August 27, 2024, Wright timely filed a motion to correct error, which was denied by the post-conviction court. Wright now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[5] Wright argues that the post-conviction court erred when it summarily denied his petition for relief on the pleadings. “Post-conviction procedures ․ create a narrow remedy for subsequent collateral challenges to convictions, challenges which must be based on grounds enumerated in the post-conviction rules.” Williams v. State, 706 N.E.2d 149, 153 (Ind. 1999), cert. denied. Post-conviction actions are civil proceedings in which the petitioner must prove his claims by a preponderance of the evidence. Ind. Post-Conviction Rule 1(5); Bobadilla v. State, 117 N.E.3d 1272, 1279 (Ind. 2019). A petitioner who fails to meet this burden and receives a denial of post-conviction relief, “proceeds from a negative judgment and on appeal must prove ‘that the evidence, as a whole, unmistakably and unerringly points to a conclusion contrary to the post-conviction court's decision.’ ” Bobadilla, 117 N.E.3d at 1279 (quoting Wilkes v. State, 984 N.E.2d 1236, 1240 (Ind. 2013)). Pursuant to Post-Conviction Rule 1(6), the post-conviction court “shall make specific findings of fact[ ] and conclusions of law on all issues presented, whether or not a hearing is held.” When reviewing the court's order denying relief, we will “not defer to the post-conviction court's legal conclusions,” and the “findings and judgment will be reversed only upon a showing of clear error—that which leaves us with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” Humphrey v. State, 73 N.E.3d 677, 682 (Ind. 2017) (quoting Ben-Yisrayl v. State, 729 N.E.2d 102, 106 (Ind. 2000), cert. denied).

[6] Post-Conviction Rule 1(4) provides two distinct subsections under which a trial court may summarily deny a petition for post-conviction relief without a hearing—subsection (f) and subsection (g)—with different legal standards governing the court's determination. Osmanov v. State, 40 N.E.3d 904, 908 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). Subsection (f) allows the post-conviction court to deny the petition without further proceedings if “the pleadings conclusively show that petitioner is entitled to no relief.” P-C.R. 1(4)(f) (emphasis added). Subsection (g), which is akin to summary judgment under Indiana Trial Rule 56, provides in relevant part that the post-conviction court may grant a motion by either party for summary disposition of the petition when it “appears from the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, stipulations of fact, and any affidavits submitted, that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” P-C.R. 1(4)(g); Binkley v. State, 993 N.E.2d 645, 650 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).

[7] Here, the record on appeal reveals that neither party filed a motion for summary disposition. Indeed, the parties did not even have time to do so because the post-conviction court denied Wright's amended petition less than two weeks after he filed it and before the State had a chance to file an answer within the thirty-day response period. See P-C.R. 1(4)(a). Because neither party filed a motion for summary disposition, the post-conviction court's summary denial could not have been based on Indiana Post-Conviction Rule 1(4)(g). Therefore, as both parties agree, see Appellant's Br. p. 11; Appellee's Br. p. 18, the post-conviction court's summary disposition must have been based on subsection (f).

[8] We review a dismissal under subsection (f) as we would a judgment on the pleadings. Osmanov, 40 N.E.3d at 909. This analysis tests the sufficiency of a claim presented in the pleadings and forecloses further litigation when it is clear from the face of the pleadings that under no circumstances could relief be granted. KS&E Sports v. Runnels, 72 N.E.3d 892, 898 (Ind. 2017). Thus, if the petition alleges only errors of law, then the post-conviction court may determine, without a hearing, whether the petitioner is entitled to relief on those claims, but if the facts pled raise “an issue of possible merit,” then the petition should not be disposed of under section (f)—even if the petitioner has only a remote chance of establishing his claim. Osmanov, 40 N.E.3d at 909. The post-conviction court “should accept the well-pled facts as true and determine whether the post-conviction petition raises an issue of possible merit.” Id. (internal quotations omitted).

[9] Here, Wright raised claims of ineffective assistance of his trial counsel in his amended petition for relief. We have consistently held that the issue of ineffective assistance of trial counsel is fact sensitive and turns on the particular facts of each case. See Osmanov, 40 N.E.3d at 909; Binkley, 993 N.E.2d at 650. “ ‘Consequently, when a petitioner alleges ineffective assistance of counsel, and the facts pled raise an issue of possible merit, the petition should not be summarily denied.’ ” Osmanov, 40 N.E.3d at 909 (quoting Kelly v. State, 952 N.E.2d 297, 300 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011)).

[10] Wright's amended petition for post-conviction relief alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to adequately consult with or advise Wright regarding the State's plea agreement offers and his sentencing exposure if he proceeded to trial and failing to present any mitigating evidence at sentencing and instead relied solely upon the presentence investigation report. The post-conviction court summarily denied the petition before the State had the opportunity to respond. In summarily denying the petition, the court relied upon evidence outside of the face of the pleadings, including the affidavits and other attached evidence, which was not appropriate in disposing of the petition under Post-Conviction Rule 1(4)(f). Instead, the post-conviction court should have accepted the well-pled facts as true and determined whether the petition raised an issue of possible merit. Osmanov, 40 N.E.3d at 910.

[11] We conclude that Wright's petition—when reviewed without considering documents outside the face of the pleadings and accepting the well-pled facts as true—pled facts that raised issues of possible merit. Therefore, the post-conviction court erred by summarily denying his post-conviction petition under Post-Conviction Rule 1(4)(f). Accordingly, we must reverse the post-conviction court's summary denial and remand for further proceedings on his ineffective assistance of counsel claims.

[12] Reversed and remanded.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Under Indiana Post-Conviction Rule 1(9)(a), “[u]pon receiving a copy of the petition, ․ the Public Defender may represent any petitioner committed to the Indiana Department of Correction in all proceedings under this Rule, including appeal, if the Public Defender determines the proceedings are meritorious and in the interests of justice.” The post-conviction rules permit the Public Defender's office to withdraw its appearance if it determines that “the proceeding is not meritorious or in the interests of justice.” Ind. Post-Conviction Rule 1(9)(c).

2.   Under Indiana Post-Conviction Rule 1(4)(a), the State is required to respond “by answer stating the reasons, if any, why the relief prayed for should not be granted” within thirty days after the filing of the petition for post-conviction relief.

Foley, Judge.

Bailey, J. and Bradford, J., concur.