Jeffrey Glenn Roberts,1 Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Jeffrey Glenn Roberts petitioned for post-conviction relief after he was convicted of Level 2 felony conspiracy to commit dealing in a narcotic drug, found to be a habitual offender, and sentenced to 50 years in the Department of Correction (DOC). The post-conviction court denied the petition, as well as Roberts's motion to correct error, and Roberts appeals. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] The evidence most favorable to Roberts's conviction is as follows. On October 29, 2016, Olivia Windlow overdosed on heroin and died. Police found Windlow's phone but weren't able to unlock it, so they gave the phone to Windlow's brother. Windlow's brother correctly guessed the passcode and found text messages between Windlow and a “Lil Jeff” indicating that they had arranged for Windlow to buy heroin from “Lil Jeff” on several occasions between October 21 and October 29. Windlow's brother returned the phone to police and showed them the messages. Police also spoke with Mark McNew, who had taken Windlow to buy heroin several times, including on the day she died. He was shown a photo array and identified Roberts as the seller. Further investigation revealed that the phone number Windlow had for “Lil Jeff” was also saved—under the name “Mike”—in the phone of the mother of Roberts's children.

[3] The State charged Roberts with Level 2 felony conspiracy to commit dealing in a narcotic drug (at least five grams, and with a prior conviction), Level 4 felony dealing in a narcotic drug, and Level 5 felony reckless homicide. The State also alleged that Roberts is a habitual offender based on prior felony convictions. A jury trial was held in April 2018. The State presented the evidence summarized above, along with cell phone location evidence that further incriminated Roberts. Evidence was also presented that (1) Windlow's brother deleted text messages between Windlow and McNew from Windlow's phone before returning it to police and (2) the coroner took possession of a syringe found with Windlow's body but later disposed of it without having it tested. The jury found Roberts guilty on the conspiracy charge and found him to be a habitual offender but deadlocked on the other charges (which were later dismissed). The trial court sentenced Roberts to 50 years in the DOC.

[4] Roberts appealed, arguing that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the conspiracy conviction, (2) the trial court invaded the province of the jury by making certain comments, and (3) the trial court erred by denying the admission of Windlow's jail records. This Court rejected all three arguments and affirmed. Roberts v. State, No. 18A-CR-1321, 2019 WL 639028 (Ind. Ct. App. Feb. 15, 2019) (mem.). Our Supreme Court denied Roberts's petition to transfer.

[5] Roberts filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief in 2021 and then retained an attorney, who filed an amended petition in 2023. The amended petition claimed that Roberts's trial attorney was ineffective for failing to (1) impeach McNew with prior inconsistent statements, (2) object to the admission of the text messages between Windlow and “Lil Jeff” on the basis that Windlow's brother had tampered with Windlow's phone, and (3) object to “any information regarding the syringe or cause of death.” Appellant's App. Vol. 2 pp. 25-30. The petition also claimed that Roberts's appellate attorney was ineffective for failing to argue that the trial court erred by admitting the text messages between Windlow and “Lil Jeff” on the basis that the messages were “never linked to Roberts.” Id. at 30-33.

[6] The post-conviction court held an evidentiary hearing and denied Roberts's petition. Roberts then filed a pro se motion to correct error that raised new, freestanding claims of fundamental error rather than addressing the ineffective-assistance claims that had been presented by counsel. Id. at 59-61. The post-conviction court denied the motion without comment.

[7] Roberts, still proceeding pro se, now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

I. The post-conviction court didn't err by denying Roberts's petition

[8] Roberts contends the post-conviction court erred by denying his petition. A defendant who petitions for post-conviction relief bears the burden of establishing grounds for relief by a preponderance of the evidence. Hollowell v. State, 19 N.E.3d 263, 268-69 (Ind. 2014). A petitioner appealing from the denial of post-conviction relief must show that the evidence as a whole leads unerringly and unmistakably to a conclusion opposite that reached by the post-conviction court. Id. at 269. “Although we do not defer to the post-conviction court's legal conclusions, a post-conviction court's 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.” Id. (quotation omitted).

[9] Roberts's petition alleged ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. When evaluating a defendant's ineffective-assistance claim, we apply the well-established, two-part test from Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Wilkes v. State, 984 N.E.2d 1236, 1240 (Ind. 2013). 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, there is a reasonable probability the result of the proceeding would have been different. Id. at 1240-41.

A. Trial Counsel

[10] Roberts first renews his argument that his trial attorney was ineffective for failing to object to the admission of the text messages between Windlow and “Lil Jeff” on the basis that Windlow's brother had tampered with Windlow's phone. Specifically, Roberts contends that counsel should have made an authentication objection to the messages. The proponent of an item of evidence “must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.” Ind. Evidence Rule 901(a). As this Court has explained:

Absolute proof of authenticity is not required. The proponent of the evidence needs to establish only a reasonable probability that the document is what it is claimed to be. Once this reasonable probability is shown, any inconclusiveness regarding the exhibit's connection with the events at issue goes to the exhibit's weight, not its admissibility.

Rogers v. State, 130 N.E.3d 626, 629 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (citation modified). Here, there is a reasonable probability that the text messages admitted into evidence were an accurate representation of the text communication between Windlow and “Lil Jeff” during the relevant period. While there is evidence that Windlow's brother deleted other text messages from Windlow's phone, there is no evidence that he deleted or otherwise altered any of the messages between Windlow and “Lil Jeff.” To the extent the tampering creates doubt about the authenticity of the messages between Windlow and “Lil Jeff,” that doubt goes to the weight to be accorded the messages, not their admissibility. Therefore, an authentication objection would have failed, and Roberts's trial attorney wasn't ineffective for failing to make such an objection.

[11] Roberts also mentions the State's failure to preserve the syringe that was found in Windlow's hand, but he doesn't specify what his trial attorney should have done. Perhaps he thinks counsel should have moved to exclude any mention of the syringe at trial, but such a motion wouldn't have changed the outcome. Roberts was convicted of conspiracy to deal heroin to Windlow, and the State's other evidence—in particular, the text messages between Windlow and “Lil Jeff,” McNew's identification of Roberts as the seller, and Windlow's death from a heroin overdose—was more than sufficient to prove that charge. Roberts hasn't shown that his trial attorney was ineffective with regard to the syringe.

[12] Finally, Roberts asserts that his trial attorney was ineffective for “fail[ing] to impeach McNew using his pending charges, involvement in destroying exculpatory evidence, or prior inconsistent statements[.]” Appellant's Br. p. 33. Setting aside the fact that Roberts's failure-to-impeach claim below was limited to prior inconsistent statements, Roberts doesn't identify on appeal any specific information he believes his attorney should have used to further confront McNew. He hasn't shown that trial counsel was ineffective in this respect.

B. Appellate Counsel

[13] Roberts contends that his appellate attorney was ineffective for failing to argue that the trial court committed fundamental error by admitting the text messages given the tampering by Windlow's brother. Id. at 26. Roberts didn't make this argument in the post-conviction court, so he waived it for appeal.² Waiver notwithstanding, as we held above, Windlow's brother's tampering with other messages on Windlow's phone was not a basis for excluding the messages between Windlow and “Lil Jeff.” Therefore, any such fundamental-error argument by appellate counsel would have failed.

[14] Roberts hasn't shown that the post-conviction court erred by denying his petition.

II. The post-conviction court didn't abuse its discretion by denying Roberts's motion to correct error

[15] Roberts also argues that the post-conviction court abused its discretion by denying his motion to correct error. But as noted above, Roberts's pro se motion didn't address the ineffective-assistance claims that had been presented by counsel. Rather, it raised new, freestanding claims of fundamental error. Freestanding claims of fundamental error generally can't be raised on post-conviction review. Robinson v. State, 175 N.E.3d 859, 866 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021), trans. denied. And even if they could be, issues generally can't be raised for the first time in a motion to correct error. O'Bryant v. Adams, 123 N.E.3d 689, 694 (Ind. 2019). The post-conviction court didn't abuse its discretion by denying Roberts's motion.

[16] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

2.   Below, Roberts claimed that his appellate attorney should have challenged the admission of the text messages on the basis that they were “never linked to Roberts.” He doesn't renew that claim on appeal.

Vaidik, Judge.

Bailey, J., and Scheele, J., concur.