Chandell Arion Davis, Appellant-Defendant, v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] Chandell Davis appeals his convictions for residential entry and criminal mischief, arguing that the State violated Brady v. Maryland when it withheld exculpatory evidence and that his trial counsel was ineffective. Concluding Davis waived his Brady argument and his trial counsel was not ineffective, we affirm.

Issues

[2] Davis raises three issues, which we consolidate and restate as:

I. Whether the State violated Brady v. Maryland; and

II. Whether Davis's trial counsel was ineffective.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] In July 2024, Davis broke into his ex-girlfriend's home. As a result, the State charged him with Level 6 felony residential entry and Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief.

[4] When the State moved to admit a series of crime scene photographs during the September 2024 jury trial, Davis interrupted and claimed he had not yet reviewed the photographs. The State indicated the photographs had been provided to Davis nineteen days prior to trial with other discovery items, aside from body camera footage, which had been shared with Davis four days prior to trial. The trial court admitted the photographs as State's exhibits over Davis's objection and, at Davis's request, allowed him to play the body camera footage to the jury during his case-in-chief.

[5] The jury found Davis guilty on both counts, and the trial court sentenced him to an aggregate two-year term of incarceration. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

I. Brady Evidence

[6] Davis first argues the State violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), when it withheld the crime scene photographs and the body camera footage. Specifically, Davis alleges the evidence was exculpatory and should have been disclosed to him prior to trial. But Davis never presented a Brady argument to the trial court. And it is well settled that “[a]rguments raised for the first time on appeal ․ are waived for appeal.” State v. Allen, 187 N.E.3d 221, 228 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022), trans. denied. Thus, Davis has waived his Brady argument.

[7] Waiver notwithstanding, Davis's Brady argument fails just the same. “To prevail on a claim that the prosecution failed to disclose exculpatory evidence, a defendant must establish: (1) that the prosecution suppressed evidence; (2) that the evidence was favorable to the defense; and (3) that the evidence was material to an issue at trial.” Badelle v. State, 754 N.E.2d 510, 526 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001), trans. denied. “Evidence is material when there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Davis-Martin v. State, 116 N.E.3d 1178, 1189 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied. “Notably, Brady only applies to the discovery, after trial, of information that was known to the prosecution but unknown to the defense.” Id. Stated another way, the objective of a Brady claim is for exculpatory evidence discovered post-trial to be considered because there is a reasonable probability that the evidence would have changed the result of the proceeding. Id.

[8] Although Davis claims that he received the crime scene photographs and body camera footage for the first time during trial, the State maintains that it tendered both to him in the days and weeks preceding the trial. In either situation, the exculpatory evidence was known to Davis before the end of trial. Moreover, the crime scene photographs were admitted into evidence for the jury to review and the body camera footage was published to the jury at Davis's request. In other words, the exculpatory evidence that Davis believes would exonerate him was already considered by the jury that ultimately found him guilty of both counts. Thus, Brady does not apply. See id. (limiting Brady applications to post-trial discovery of information).

II. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

[9] Davis next argues that his trial counsel was ineffective. Specifically, Davis alleges that “it is clear from defense counsel's statements [to] the trial court that he had not seen the photographs [and] that he failed to investigate exculpatory evidence contained in those photographs ․” Appellant's Amend. Br. p. 11 (internal citation omitted).

[10] When evaluating an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, we apply the two-part test established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Bobadilla v. State, 117 N.E.3d 1272, 1280 (Ind. 2019). “The defendant must prove: (1) counsel rendered deficient performance, meaning counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness as gauged by prevailing professional norms; and (2) counsel's deficient performance prejudiced the defendant, i.e., but for counsel's errors the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Id.

[11] When the State moved to admit the crime scene photographs, Davis's trial counsel immediately notified the trial court that he had not yet seen the photographs. Now on appeal, Davis argues that the photographs contained exculpatory evidence and that his trial counsel should have investigated them further. But, as we have already discussed, the photographs were admitted into evidence. In other words, the exculpatory evidence that Davis believes would exonerate him and should have been investigated further by his trial counsel was ultimately considered by the jury. Under these circumstances, trial counsel's performance was not unreasonable, nor was it deficient or prejudicial to Davis. Thus, Davis's ineffective assistance of counsel claim fails.

Conclusion

[12] Davis waived his Brady argument, and his trial counsel was not ineffective.

[13] Affirmed.

Najam, Senior Judge.

Chief Judge Altice and Judge Brown concur. Altice, C.J., and Brown, J., concur.