Jennings Daugherty v. State of Indiana

FILED
Apr 05 2016, 8:35 am

CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Stephen T. Owens Gregory F. Zoeller
Public Defender of Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Laura L. Volk Karl M. Scharnberg
Deputy Public Defender Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Jennings Daugherty, April 5, 2016
Appellant-Petitioner, Court of Appeals Case No.
89A01-1510-PC-1532
v. Appeal from the Wayne Superior
State of Indiana, Court

Appellee-Respondent. The Honorable Gregory A. Horn,
Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
89D02-1210-PC-10

Riley, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 89A01-1510-PC-1532 | April 5, 2016 Page 1 of 20
 STATEMENT OF THE CASE

[1] Appellant-Petitioner, Jennings Daugherty (Daugherty), appeals the post-

convictions court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief.

[2] We affirm, in part, reverse, in part, and remand for resentencing.

ISSUES

[3] Daugherty raises two issues on appeal, which we restate as follows:

(1) Whether Daugherty was denied the effective assistance of appellate

counsel where his counsel failed to argue that his two consecutive

sentences for unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon

(SVF) convictions constituted an impermissible double enhancement;

and

(2) Whether Daugherty was denied the effective assistance of appellate

counsel where his counsel failed to argue that his aggregate sentence of

33 years exceeded the statutory limitation for consecutive sentences

arising out of a single episode of criminal conduct.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

[4] We adopt this court’s statement of facts and procedural history as set forth in

our memorandum decision issued in Daugherty’s direct appeal, Daugherty v.

State, No. 89A01–1010–CR–520 (Ind. Ct. App. May 9, 2011), trans. vacated,

(internal citations to the record omitted):

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 89A01-1510-PC-1532 | April 5, 2016 Page 2 of 20
 At 2:48 a.m. on May 26, 2007, Captain Thomas Porfidio
[(Captain Porfidio)] of the Richmond Police Department was
dispatched to Bertie’s Bar in Richmond upon receiving a
complaint of a bar fight. Upon arriving, Captain Porfidio spoke
with the bartender who indicated that Daugherty had shoved her.
The bartender further indicated that Daugherty was sitting in a
van that was parked across the street from the bar, and requested
that Daugherty be banned from returning to the bar. The
bartender indicated, however, that she did not wish to press
charges against Daugherty.

After speaking to the bartender, Captain Porfidio approached the
van in which Daugherty was sitting in the front passenger seat.
Captain Porfidio observed four individuals, including Daugherty,
in the van. By this time, Officer Kevin Smith [(Officer Smith)],
who had also responded to the scene, was speaking to Daugherty.
During the course of his conversation with Daugherty,
Officer Smith asked Daugherty to step out of the van.
Captain Porfidio and Officer Smith observed as Daugherty
stumbled and nearly fell while attempting to get out of the van.
Daugherty also exhibited multiple signs of intoxication, including
the strong odor of alcohol; red, bloodshot, and watery eyes;
thick-tongued, slow speech; and slow, fumbling manual
dexterity. Both Captain Porfidio and Officer Smith determined
based on their training as police officers that Daugherty was
intoxicated and, thus, incapable of driving. The officers
instructed one of the other individuals in the van to drive
Daugherty home where he could “sleep it off.”

Forty-seven minutes later, at 3:35 a.m., Captain Porfidio was
patrolling another area of Richmond when he saw the van in
which Daugherty was earlier sitting. Captain Porfidio pulled
alongside the van at a traffic light and observed that Daugherty
was driving the vehicle. Captain Porfidio activated his
emergency lights and initiated a traffic stop. Initially, Daugherty
pulled over to the curb, but started to slowly drive away as

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 89A01-1510-PC-1532 | April 5, 2016 Page 3 of 20
 Captain Porfidio opened the door of his marked police cruiser.
Captain Porfidio closed his door and followed Daugherty until
he again pulled over to the curb. Daugherty attempted to slowly
drive away a second time as Captain Porfidio opened his cruiser
door. Daugherty pulled into a parking lot where he again
stopped, only to slowly drive away as Captain Porfidio again
attempted to approach his vehicle. Daugherty stopped the van
when he could no longer drive forward without driving into a
building.

Officers Smith and Ami Miller [(Officer Miller)] arrived as
Captain Porfidio approached the driver’s side of the van and
asked to see Daugherty’s identification. In attempting to comply
with Captain Porfidio’s request, Daugherty fumbled with his
wallet and dropped it into his lap. Captain Porfidio shined his
flashlight on the wallet and observed the “butt-end” of a pistol
sticking up from between Daugherty’s legs. Captain Porfidio
called out, “gun,” stepped back, and drew his service weapon.
At the same time, Officer Miller drew her taser, stepped toward
the vehicle, and tased Daugherty.

Captain Porfidio pulled Daugherty out of the vehicle while the
taser was still cycling, and the pistol that was in Daugherty’s lap
fell to the ground and was recovered by police. Police also
recovered a rifle that was found on the front floorboard of
Daugherty’s vehicle. The rifle was within reach of the driver’s
seat where Daugherty had been sitting. Both weapons were
loaded. Daugherty was taken to a local hospital where he was
hostile to the officers. Daugherty [spat] at the officers, threatened
to kill them and their families, and threatened to rape their wives.
The officers later testified that Daugherty’s threats put them in
fear for both their personal safety and their families’ safety.

Later that day, Daugherty was charged with Class A
misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license, Class D
felony intimidation[, Ind. Code § 35–45–2–1(a)(2); (b)(1)(B)(i)

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 89A01-1510-PC-1532 | April 5, 2016 Page 4 of 20
 (2006)], Class D felony operating a motor vehicle while
intoxicated, Class D felony resisting law enforcement, and two
counts of Class B felony possession of a firearm by a serious
violent felon[, I.C. § 35-47-4-5(c)]. The State further alleged that
the Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun charge should be
enhanced to a Class C felony because Daugherty had a prior
felony conviction. Daugherty was also alleged to be a habitual
offender. On August 14, 2009, Daugherty filed a motion to
suppress the evidence recovered following what he alleged was
an illegal traffic stop by Captain Porfidio. The trial court denied
Daugherty’s motion to suppress on February 16, 2010, and
subsequently denied his request that the ruling be certified for
interlocutory appeal.

During an April 9, 2010 pre-trial hearing, Daugherty waived his
right to a jury trial and indicated that he would stipulate to being
a habitual offender if convicted of the underlying crimes.
Daugherty filed a second motion to suppress on April 13, 2010.
Daugherty failed to appear on the morning of his April 19, 2010
bench trial, and the trial was conducted, over his counsel’s
objection, without Daugherty present. The State dismissed the
resisting law enforcement charge. Upon reviewing the evidence
presented by the parties, the trial court denied Daugherty’s
second motion to suppress and found Daugherty guilty of the
remaining counts as charged.

On July 20, 2010, the State requested permission to amend its
habitual offender allegation by replacing two of Daugherty’s
alleged felony convictions with different felony convictions
because the State subsequently learned that the two alleged
felony convictions had previously been reversed by the Indiana
Supreme Court. Following a hearing, the trial court granted the
State’s request and allowed the amendment. Daugherty
subsequently admitted to being a habitual offender.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 89A01-1510-PC-1532 | April 5, 2016 Page 5 of 20
 At sentencing, the State moved to set aside the Class C felony
carrying a handgun without a license conviction out of double
jeopardy concerns. The trial court imposed a three-year sentence
for the intimidation conviction that was to run concurrently to a
one-and-one-half-year sentence for the operating while
intoxicated conviction, but consecutively to the two consecutive
fifteen-year sentences for each of the possession of a firearm by a
serious violent felon convictions. The trial court enhanced
Daugherty’s sentence by an additional twenty years as a result of
his status as a habitual offender, for an aggregate fifty-three-year
sentence.

[5] On May 9, 2011, we affirmed the trial court’s judgment. On October 29, 2012,

Daugherty filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief, which was amended

by his counsel on July 15, 2014. On December 3, 2014, the parties jointly filed

an Agreement to Vacate Daugherty’s Habitual Offender Finding and Resulting

Enhanced Sentence on Count V. On December 8, 2014, the trial court accepted

the agreement and reduced Daugherty’s aggregate sentence to 33 years. On

July 8, 2015, the post-conviction court held an evidentiary hearing on

Daugherty’s petition for post-conviction relief. Daugherty’s appellate counsel

was the sole witness at the hearing. He testified that he raised four issues on

appeal: (1) the trial court’s denial of Daugherty’s motion to suppress

constituted an abuse of the court’s discretion; (2) Daugherty’s multiple

convictions for possession of a firearm by an SVF violated the prohibition

against double jeopardy; (3) the trial court erred in allowing the State to amend

the habitual offender information; and (4) Daugherty’s sentence was

inappropriate. Out of these issues, in appellate counsel’s opinion, the double

jeopardy violation and the inappropriateness of Daugherty’s sentence claims

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 89A01-1510-PC-1532 | April 5, 2016 Page 6 of 20
 were the strongest arguments. He testified that he did not consider raising a

claim that the consecutive sentences for two SVF convictions constituted an

impermissible double enhancement and a claim that Daugherty’s aggregate

sentence exceeded the statutory limitation for consecutive sentences arising out

of a single episode of criminal conduct. On September 3, 2015, the post-

conviction court entered its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, denying

the requested relief.

[6] Daugherty now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

I. Standard of Review

[7] In a post-conviction proceeding, the petitioner must establish the grounds for

relief by a preponderance of the evidence. Ind. Post–Conviction Rule

1(5); Overstreet v. State, 877 N.E.2d 144, 151 (Ind. 2007). When challenging the

denial of post-conviction relief, the petitioner appeals a negative judgment.

Overstreet, 877 N.E.2d at 151. To prevail, the petitioner must show that the

evidence leads unerringly and unmistakably to a decision opposite that reached

by the post-conviction court. Id. We will disturb the post-conviction court’s

decision only where the evidence is without conflict and leads to but one

conclusion and the post-conviction court reached the opposite

conclusion. Henley v. State, 881 N.E.2d 639, 643–44 (Ind. 2008).

[8] Where the post-conviction court enters findings of fact and conclusions of law,

as in the instant case, we do not defer to the post-conviction court’s legal

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 89A01-1510-PC-1532 | April 5, 2016 Page 7 of 20
 conclusions; the post-conviction court’s findings and judgment will be reversed,

however, only upon a showing of clear error that leaves us with a definite and

firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Overstreet, 877 N.E.2d at 151.

Post-conviction procedures do not afford a petitioner with a super-appeal, and

not all issues are available. Timberlake v. State, 753 N.E.2d 591, 597 (Ind. 2001).

Rather, subsequent collateral challenges to convictions must be based on

grounds enumerated in the post-conviction rules. Id. If an issue was known and

available, but not raised on direct appeal, it is waived. Id.

[9] A defendant claiming a violation of the right of effective assistance of counsel

must establish the two components set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466

U.S. 668 (1984). Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 390 (2000). First, the

defendant must show that counsel’s performance was deficient. Strickland, 466

U.S. at 687. This requires a showing that counsel’s representation fell below an

objective standard of reasonableness and that counsel made errors so serious

that counsel was not functioning as “counsel” guaranteed to the defendant by

the Sixth Amendment. Id. Second, the defendant must show that the deficient

performance prejudiced the defense. Id. To establish prejudice, the defendant

must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s

unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been

different. Id. at 694. A reasonable probability is one that is sufficient to

undermine confidence in the outcome. Id.

[10] Counsel is afforded considerable discretion in choosing strategy and tactics, and

we will accord those decisions deference. Id. at 689. A strong presumption

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 89A01-1510-PC-1532 | April 5, 2016 Page 8 of 20
 arises that counsel rendered adequate assistance and made all significant

decisions in the exercise of reasonable professional judgment. Id. at

690. The Strickland court recognized that even the finest, most experienced

criminal defense attorneys may not agree on the ideal strategy or the most

effective way to represent a client. Id. at 689. Isolated mistakes, poor strategy,

inexperience, and instances of bad judgment do not necessarily render

representation ineffective. Bieghler v. State, 690 N.E.2d 188, 199 (Ind. 1997).

The two prongs of the Strickland test are separate and independent inquiries.

Thus, “[i]f it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of

lack of sufficient prejudice . . . that course should be followed.” Williams v.

State, 706 N.E.2d 149, 154 (Ind. 1999) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697).

[11] Daugherty alleges that his appellate counsel was ineffective. Our supreme court

has recognized three categories of alleged appellate counsel ineffectiveness: (1)

denying access to an appeal, (2) failing to raise issues, and (3) failing to present

issues competently. Bieghler, 690 N.E.2d at 193-95. Daugherty specifically

asserts that his appellate counsel failed to raise two issues: that the consecutive

sentences for his two SVF convictions constituted an impermissible double

enhancement and that Daugherty’s aggregate sentence exceeded the statutory

limitation for consecutive sentences arising out of a single episode of criminal

conduct. His claims fall into Bieghler’s second category. When assessing claims

under the second category, reviewing courts should be particularly deferential

to counsel’s strategic decision to exclude certain issues in favor of others, unless

such a decision was unquestionably unreasonable. Id. Finally, we review

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 89A01-1510-PC-1532 | April 5, 2016 Page 9 of 20
 matters of statutory interpretations de novo because they present pure questions

of law. Nicoson v. State, 938 N.E.2d 660, 663 (Ind. 2010).

II. Double Enhancement

[12] Daugherty argues his appellate counsel was ineffective because he failed to raise

a claim that the imposition of two consecutive sentences for possession of a

firearm by an SVF, based on a single prior felony conviction, constituted an

impermissible double enhancement. Generally, double enhancements are not

permissible. Dye v State, 972 N.E.2d 853, 856 (Ind. 2012), aff’d on reh’g, 984

N.E.2d 625 (Ind. 2013). But double enhancements are permissible when there

is explicit legislative direction authorizing them. Id. at 857. There are three

types of statutes authorizing enhanced sentences for repeat offenders: the

general habitual offender statute, specialized habitual offender statutes, and

progressive-penalty statutes. Id. The first type, the “general habitual offender

statute,” provides that a person convicted of three felonies of any kind is called

a “habitual offender.” I.C. § 35–50–2–8; Beldon v. State, 926 N.E.2d 480, 482

(Ind. 2010). Habitual offenders are subject to an additional term of years

beyond that imposed for the underlying felony. Beldon, 926 N.E.2d at 482. The

second type, the “specialized habitual offender statutes,” authorize sentencing

enhancements where the defendant has been convicted of a certain number of

similar offenses. Id.; Dye, 972 N.E.2d at 857; see, e.g., I.C. § 35–50–2–14 (repeat

sex offenders); I.C. § 9–30–10–4 (habitual traffic violators). The third type, the

“progressive-penalty statutes,” which are the most specialized, elevate the level

of an offense (with a correspondingly enhanced sentence) where the defendant

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 89A01-1510-PC-1532 | April 5, 2016 Page 10 of 20
 has previously been convicted of a particular offense. Dye, 972 N.E.2d at 857.

Examples of the progressive penalty statutes include the statute at issue here,

Indiana Code section 35-47-4-5(c). See Dye, 972 N.E.2d at 858 (identifying the

SVF statute as a progressive penalty statute). Double enhancement issues arise

where more than one of these statutes apply to the defendant at the same time.

Id. at 857.

[13] As a general rule, “absent explicit legislative direction, a sentence imposed

following conviction under a progressive penalty statute may not be increased

further under either the general habitual offender statute or a specialized

habitual offender statute.” Id. Similarly, a conviction under a specialized

habitual offender statute cannot be further enhanced under the general habitual

offender statute in the absence of explicit legislative direction. Id. In applying

the general rule against double enhancements, first, we determine whether the

defendant’s underlying conviction is pursuant to a progressive-penalty scheme

or a specialized habitual-offender scheme. Id. at 858. If not, then there is no

double-enhancement problem. Id. But if so, then the general rule against

double enhancements is triggered and we will invalidate a double enhancement

unless the language of the relevant statute possesses the requisite “explicit

legislative direction” to impose a double enhancement. Id.

[14] In Dye, applying this analysis, our supreme court held that the defendant’s

habitual offender enhancement violated the rule against double enhancement.

Id. First, the Dye court held that the defendant’s SVF conviction was a

progressive-penalty statute. Id. Second, the Dye court held that the general

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 89A01-1510-PC-1532 | April 5, 2016 Page 11 of 20
 habitual offender statute did not include explicit legislative direction

authorizing double enhancement. Id. As such, the Dye court concluded that a

double enhancement was not proper where the underlying conviction was for

unlawful possession of a firearm by an SVF. Id.

[15] In the present case, in essence, Daugherty urges us to extend the Dye court’s

decision to cases involving consecutive sentences for two progressive-penalty

statutes. Daugherty specifically asserts that, because his two SVF convictions

were “already enhanced” and each was supported by the same underlying

felony, ordering the sentences to run consecutively violated the double

enhancement prohibition. (Appellant’s Br. p. 16). We disagree. First,

Daugherty starts off on the wrong foot. He assumes that the underlying felony

in his case was the same as the underlying felony used to enhance the

defendant’s sentence in Dye.1 Daugherty’s underlying felony was used to

establish his SVF status, and the SVF status, in turn, was an element in each

SVF count; whereas in Dye, the underlying felony was used to establish the SVF

status in one SVF count and, what distinguishes Dye from the present case, the

underlying felony was used as an enhancement for the habitual offender

adjudication. See Dye, 972 N.E.2d at 858. Second, the Dye court clearly stated

that the “[d]ouble enhancement issues arise where more than one of the [three types

of repeat offender] statutes” apply to the defendant at the same time. Id. at 857

(emphasis added). The present issue involves only the progressive-penalty

1
This would equally apply to other cases cited by Daugherty in support of his argument.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 89A01-1510-PC-1532 | April 5, 2016 Page 12 of 20
 statute, the third type of repeat offender statutes, and the other two types were

not implicated.2 Third, none of the authorities cited by Daugherty support his

argument because none of the cases dealt with two separate SVF convictions.

See id. at 858 (an SVF conviction and a habitual offender adjudication); Mills v.

State, 868 N.E.2d 446, 452 (Ind. 2007) (an SVF conviction and a habitual

offender adjudication); Sweatt v. State, 887 N.E.2d 81, 83-84 (Ind. 2008) (an

SVF conviction and a habitual offender adjudication). Fourth, the SVF statute

itself is unambiguous—“[an] [SVF] who knowingly or intentionally possesses a

firearm commits unlawful possession of a firearm by a[n] [SVF], a Class B

felony.” I.C. § 35-47-4-5(c) (2006). The statute provides that each unlawful

possession of a weapon is considered to be a separate and distinct act, and

therefore each unlawful possession is a separate and distinct offense. Taylor v.

State, 929 N.E.2d 912, 921 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied. Finally, we had

already addressed Daugherty’s claim of whether the trial court abused its

discretion in imposing both enhanced and consecutive sentences in 2011, when

we held that his consecutive sentences were not inappropriate in his direct

appeal.

[16] Because Daugherty’s single underlying felony conviction served as an element

in each SVF count, not as an enhancement, and because each SVF count was a

separate and distinct offense, we conclude that the imposition of two sentences

for two counts of unlawful possession of a firearm by an SVF to run

2
Daugherty’s sentence enhancement under the habitual offender statute, the first type of repeat offender
statutes, was successfully vacated on December 8, 2014, and his aggregate sentence was reduced from 53 to
33 years of imprisonment.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 89A01-1510-PC-1532 | April 5, 2016 Page 13 of 20
 consecutively was not an improper double enhancement under Indiana law and

the circumstances of this case. Further, there was no reasonable probability

that the result of the proceeding would have been any different even if appellate

counsel would have made the claim. As such, we cannot conclude that

Daugherty’s appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the double

enhancement claim.

III. Consecutive Sentencing

[17] As to the second instance of ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Daugherty

contends that his sentence for the intimidation conviction ordered to run

consecutively to the other sentences exceeded the maximum allowed

punishment pursuant to Indiana Code section 35-50-1-2 (2006), which, at the

time of Daugherty’s crimes, provided:

The court may order terms of imprisonment to be served
consecutively . . . . However, except for crimes of violence, the
total of the consecutive terms of imprisonment . . . to which the
defendant is sentenced for felony convictions arising out of an
episode of criminal conduct shall not exceed the advisory
sentence for a felony which is one (1) class of felony higher than
the most serious of the felonies for which the person has been
convicted.

[18] Both parties seem to agree that Daugherty’s SVF convictions were not covered

by the definition of a “crime of violence” at the time.3 See I.C. § 35-50-1-2.

3
The statute contains an exhaustive list of violent crimes. The crime of unlawful possession of a firearm by
an SVF was added to the list in 2015.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 89A01-1510-PC-1532 | April 5, 2016 Page 14 of 20
 However, both parties disagree as to the definition of a “single episode of

criminal conduct,” which is dispositive here. See I.C. § 35-50-1-2. A single

episode of criminal conduct is defined as “an offense or a connected series of

offenses that are closely related in time, place, and circumstance.” I.C. § 35-50-

1-2(b).

[19] Here, Daugherty was stopped for driving while intoxicated. When the police

officers discovered a handgun between his legs, Daugherty was tased and taken

into custody. Police also recovered an SKS assault rifle on the vehicle’s

floorboard. Both weapons were loaded and within Daugherty’s immediate

reach. Daugherty was taken to a hospital where he was hostile to the officers.

He spat at the officers, threatened to kill them and their families, and threatened

to rape their wives. The officers later testified that Daugherty’s threats put them

in fear for both their personal safety and their families’ safety.

[20] Daugherty claims that these events constituted a single episode and cites to

Purdy v. State, 727 N.E.2d 1091 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000), trans. denied. In Purdy, the

defendant went to the house of his former girlfriend despite a court’s order not

to have contact with her. Id. at 1092. The defendant pounded on her door and

threatened to kick it in. Id. The former girlfriend, who did not have a

telephone in her house, tried to run next door to use the telephone at the Village

Pantry. Id. The defendant, however, grabbed her by the shoulders, bruising

her. Id. When the police arrived and attempted to handcuff the defendant, he

fought back—kicked and spat at the officers, and attempted to flee. Id. As the

officers placed the defendant in a vehicle, he threatened to kill one of them. Id.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 89A01-1510-PC-1532 | April 5, 2016 Page 15 of 20
 The State charged the defendant with felony intimidation, resisting law

enforcement, and battery. Id. The Purdy court held that the defendant’s actions

constituted a single episode because “all of his actions took place during a

relatively short period of time and all were related to his assault on [his former

girlfriend].” Id. at 1093.

[21] The State, in turn, maintains that because Daugherty’s appellate counsel did

not raise the claim on direct appeal, and because appellate counsel’s decision

was “clothed” with “the strong presumption of competency,” Daugherty “can

show neither deficient performance, nor prejudice stemming from [appellate

counsel’s] election,” and his claim therefore fails. (Appellee’s Br. pp. 24-25).

Because this issue involves statutory interpretation, we reiterate that we review

it de novo. Nicoson, 938 N.E.2d at 663.

[22] The State further asserts that Daugherty’s argument “would have failed in any

case” because the events did not constitute a single episode. (Appellee’s Br. p.

24). In support, instead of addressing the negative authority presented by

Daugherty, the State cites to our decision in Newman and argues that the events

of the instant case were similar to the events in Newman. See Newman v. State,

690 N.E.2d 735 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998). In Newman, police officers were

dispatched to a tavern in response to a burglary report. Id. at 736. When they

arrived, the defendant was sitting in his car in the parking lot of the tavern. Id.

The officers stopped in front of the defendant’s vehicle and ordered him three

times to get out of his car. Id. The defendant refused to get out of his car and

sped away from the police. Id. The police officers pursued the defendant’s

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 89A01-1510-PC-1532 | April 5, 2016 Page 16 of 20
 vehicle until he ultimately crashed into a cement wall. Id. Following the crash,

the officers discovered cigarettes and money taken by the defendant from the

tavern. Id. They placed the defendant under arrest and summoned an

ambulance to transport the defendant to a hospital for the treatment of the

injuries he received in the crash. Id. After the defendant and the officers arrived

at the hospital, hospital personnel requested that the defendant not be

handcuffed in order that he be properly treated. Id. When no officer was

present in the treatment room, the defendant managed to flee down the hospital

corridor as hospital personnel yelled for assistance. Id. Police officers

recaptured the defendant and subsequently transported him to jail. Id. The

defendant pled guilty to burglary, theft, escape, resisting law enforcement, and

driving while suspended. Id. The Newman court found that the defendant’s

actions constituted three separate episodes: burglary and theft, being the first

distinct episode; resisting law enforcement and fleeing, as the second distinct

episode; and escape in the hospital, as the third distinct episode. Id. at 737.

The Newman court concluded that each of these episodes was sufficiently

unrelated and each could have been described independently without referring

to the specific details of the other episodes. Id. As such, the Newman court held

that the defendant’s crimes were committed during three distinct episodes of

criminal conduct. Id.

[23] In reaching its decision and to “illuminate our legislature’s definition” of the

term “episode,” the Newman court examined our sister states’ approaches. Id.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 89A01-1510-PC-1532 | April 5, 2016 Page 17 of 20
 The Purdy court, on the other hand, examined the statute’s underlying policy

and goals. Purdy, 727 N.E.2d at 1093. We prefer the Purdy court’s approach.

[24] We do not and may not interpret a statute that is facially clear and

unambiguous. Id. Rather, we give the statute its plain and clear meaning. Id.

However, when the statute’s application results in opposite conclusions, as in

the present case where a series of connected events are treated as one episode by

one party and as several isolated episodes by another, we seek to ascertain and

give effect to the legislature’s intent. Id. In doing so, we read the act as a whole

and strive to give effect to all of the provisions, so that no part is held

meaningless if it can be reconciled with the rest of the statute. Id. Furthermore,

we presume that our legislature intended its language to be applied in a logical

manner consistent with the statute’s underlying policy and goals. Id.

[25] Indiana Code section 35-50-1-2 imposes a previously nonexistent limitation

upon a trial court’s discretion to impose consecutive sentences, and is therefore

ameliorative in nature. Id. at 1094. An “ameliorative” statute is one that has

the effect of decreasing the penalty for an offense. Id. (emphasis in original).

With these goals in mind, we fail to see how the interpretation of this

ameliorative statute, which clearly reads that a single episode includes “a

connected series of offenses that are closely related in time, place, and

circumstance,” could result in an increase of the penalty by abstract separation of

the connected events in the parking lot and the hospital. See I.C. § 35-50-1-2

(2006). The legislature could not have intended this result in 2006. As a matter

of fact, once the legislature decided to change its position and give the trial

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 89A01-1510-PC-1532 | April 5, 2016 Page 18 of 20
 courts the discretion to impose consecutive sentences in SVF cases, it changed

the statute in 2015 and included the SVF convictions to the list of crimes of

violence.

[26] Further, even though there was a change of location between the tasing and

discovery of two firearms episode and the intimidation episode, we fail to see

how the change of location separated the two events to the extent that each

could have been described independently without referring to the specific details

of the other episode. To prove the intimidation episode, the State was required

to show that the police officers were placed “in fear of retaliation for a prior

lawful act.” (Petitioner’s Ex. 1 p. 20). The only way to accomplish this was to

refer to Daugherty’s arrest, tasing, and discovery of two loaded firearms within

his immediate reach. All of Daugherty’s actions took place during a relatively

short period of time and all were related to his intoxication and possession of the

firearms.

[27] As such, because Daugherty’s offenses were committed in a single episode, his

aggregate sentence cannot “exceed the advisory sentence for a felony which is

one (1) class of felony higher that the most serious of the felonies for which

[Daugherty] has been convicted.” I.C. § 35-50-1-2(c) (2006). Daugherty’s most

serious conviction was a Class B felony conviction for unlawful possession of a

firearm by an SVF, limiting his aggregate sentence to 30 years, the advisory

sentence for a Class A felony. I.C. § 35-50-1-2(c); -2-4 (2006).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 89A01-1510-PC-1532 | April 5, 2016 Page 19 of 20
[28] Appellate courts are duty bound to correct sentences that violate the trial court’s

authority to impose consecutive sentences under Indiana Code section 35-50-1-

2. Becker v. State, 695 N.E.2d 968, 973 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998). Applying our

standards of review, we conclude that appellate counsel’s performance was

deficient and that there was a reasonable probability that, but for appellate

counsel’s failure to raise the claim, the result of the proceeding would have been

different. The post-conviction court should have corrected the sentencing error.

We reverse the post-conviction court’s denial of Daugherty’s request for relief

as to the intimidation conviction and remand with instructions to resentence

Daugherty so that his sentence for the intimidation conviction runs

concurrently to the other sentences and his aggregate term is limited to 30 years.

CONCLUSION

[29] Based on the foregoing, we conclude that Daugherty was not denied the

effective assistance of appellate counsel when counsel did not raise the double

enhancement issue. However, we conclude that Daugherty was denied the

effective assistance of appellate counsel when counsel did not raise the issue of

statutory limitation for consecutive sentences arising out of a single episode of

criminal conduct.

[30] Affirmed, in part, reversed, in part, and remanded for resentencing consistent

with this decision.

[31] Najam, J. and May, J. concur

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 89A01-1510-PC-1532 | April 5, 2016 Page 20 of 20