MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Feb 11 2019, 11:11 am
court except for the purpose of establishing
CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Stephen T. Owens Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
C. Brent Martin Angela Sanchez
Indianapolis, Indiana Assistant Section Chief, Criminal
Appeals
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Duriel Jareau Williams, February 11, 2019
Appellant-Petitioner, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-PC-1522
v. Appeal from the Lake Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Natalie Bokota,
Appellee-Respondent. Magistrate Judge
The Honorable Samuel L. Cappas,
Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
45G04-1706-PC-4
Tavitas, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PC-1522 | February 11, 2019 Page 1 of 16
Case Summary
[1] Duriel Williams appeals the post-conviction court’s (“PC court”) denial of his
petition for post-conviction relief (“PCR”) after Williams’ conviction for
murder. We affirm.
Issues
[2] Williams raises one issue for our review, which we restate as two issues:
I. Whether Williams’ trial counsel rendered ineffective
assistance by failing to object to the erroneous jury instruction
regarding voluntary manslaughter.
II. Whether Williams’ appellate counsel rendered ineffective
assistance by failing to raise the issue of the erroneous jury
instruction regarding voluntary manslaughter on appeal.
Facts
[3] The underlying facts of this cause were set out in Williams’ direct appeal in
Williams v. State, No. 45A03-1507-CR-927 (Ind. Ct. App. Mar. 9, 2016):
On January 28, 2013, Erich Beard was shot and killed in Lake
County, Indiana. Prior to the shooting, Brandi Phillips, who had
previously dated Williams, had been traveling around in Gary in
Beard’s truck with Beard, Williams, and another woman.
Phillips was present when Williams and Beard exited the truck
and Williams pointed a gun at Beard and shot him three or four
times. At some point after the shooting, Phillips was riding in a
car with her aunt and saw Williams, who entered the car and told
Phillips that she “better not have [sic] ran [her] mouth.”
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PC-1522 | February 11, 2019 Page 2 of 16
Williams, slip op. p. 1. Williams appealed, raising only the issue of whether the
trial court abused its discretion in admitting certain testimony pursuant to
Indiana Evidence Rule 804. Id. A panel of our court affirmed Williams’
conviction.
[4] Williams then filed his petition for PCR, followed by an amended petition for
PCR, arguing that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to
object to final jury instruction four (“Instruction 4”) and instruction eight
(“Instruction 8”), regarding the lesser included offense of voluntary
manslaughter. Williams also claimed that his appellate counsel similarly
rendered ineffective assistance by failing to raise the same issue on appeal.
[5] Instruction 4 stated:
Voluntary manslaughter is a lesser included offense to the
crime of murder and is defined in pertinent part by statute as
follows: A person who knowingly or intentionally kills another
human being while acting under sudden heat by means of a
deadly weapon commits voluntary manslaughter, a class A
felony.
To convict the Defendant, the State must have proved
each of the following elements:
1. The Defendant,
2. knowingly or intentionally,
3. killed another human being, to wit Erich Christopher
Beard,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PC-1522 | February 11, 2019 Page 3 of 16
4. by means of a deadly weapon, to wit: A firearm,
5. while acting under sudden heat,
6. on or about January 28, 2013.
Appellant’s App. Vol. II pp. 204-05.
[6] Instruction 8 stated:
First consider whether the Defendant is guilty of murder.
If you find that the Defendant is guilty of murder, your job is
completed and you need not consider any other lesser included
offenses. If the State fails to prove the Defendant committed
murder, you may consider whether the Defendant committed
voluntary manslaughter, a lesser included offense.
Id. at 205.
[7] Subsequently, Williams filed a motion for summary disposition of the petition
for PCR. The PC court denied Williams’ motion for summary disposition and
Williams’ petition for PCR without a hearing. The PC court acknowledged
that the instructions were incorrect because “[s]udden heat is not an element of
the offense of voluntary manslaughter.” Id. Still, the PC court concluded that,
because “the facts and evidence at trial did not support the existence of sudden
heat[,]” the error was harmless. Id. at 207. As a result, the PC court found that
neither Williams’ trial counsel nor appellate counsel rendered ineffective
assistance. Williams now appeals.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PC-1522 | February 11, 2019 Page 4 of 16
Analysis
[8] Williams appeals the denial of his petition for PCR on summary disposition.
Post Conviction Rule 1, Section 4(g) states:
The 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. The court may ask for oral
argument on the legal issue raised. If an issue of material fact is
raised, then the court shall hold an evidentiary hearing as soon as
reasonably possible.
See Binkley v. State, 993 N.E.2d 645, 650 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (stating “‘under
the plain language of subsection (g) [of Post-Conviction Rule 1, Section 4], a
court may grant summary disposition after a motion by either party and after
considering the pleadings and other evidence submitted’”) (quoting Allen v.
State, 791 N.E.2d 748, 752-53 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (internal citations omitted),
trans. denied). On review,
An appellate court reviews the grant of a motion for summary
disposition in post-conviction proceedings on appeal in the same
way as a motion for summary judgment. Thus summary
disposition, like summary judgment, is a matter for appellate de
novo determination when the determinative issue is a matter of
law, not fact.
McClure v. State, 71 N.E.3d 845, 847 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (quoting Norris v.
State, 896 N.E.2d 1149, 1151 (Ind. 2008)), trans. denied.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PC-1522 | February 11, 2019 Page 5 of 16
[9] We note that Williams’ brief focuses on the issue of “[w]hether it was harmless
error to give fundamentally erroneous instructions on the lesser included
offense of voluntary manslaughter.” Appellant’s Br. p. 4. In Bailey v. State, our
supreme court addressed such free standing claims and held:
Any issue set forth in a post-conviction petition must be raised
within the purview of the post-conviction rules, e.g., deprivation
of the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel,
or be an issue demonstrably unavailable to the petitioner at the
time of his trial and direct appeal. Therefore, in a post-
conviction petition an allegation of the denial of the petitioner’s
due process rights may not be raised in the “free-standing” form
of an allegation of fundamental error.
472 N.E.2d 1260, 1263 (Ind. 1985). While we do address Williams’ argument,
we do it in the course of determining whether Williams’ trial counsel and
appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance. We decline to address this
issue independently as it is a free standing claim and not one of the issues we
will consider in a petition for PCR. See Lindsey v. State, 888 N.E.2d 319, 325
(Ind. Ct. App. 2008), trans. denied.
A. Trial Counsel
[10] Williams argues his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance for failing to
object to the erroneous jury instructions. To prevail on a claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel, a petitioner must demonstrate both that: (1) his or her
counsel’s performance was deficient, and (2) the petitioner was prejudiced by
the deficient performance. Ben-Yisrayl v. State, 729 N.E.2d 102, 106 (Ind. 2000)
(citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PC-1522 | February 11, 2019 Page 6 of 16
(1984)), reh’g denied, cert. denied, 534 U.S. 830, 122 S. Ct. 73 (2001). The failure
to satisfy either prong will cause the claim to fail. Grinstead v. State, 845 N.E.2d
1027, 1031 (Ind. 2006). Ineffective assistance of counsel claims, thus, can be
resolved by a prejudice analysis alone. Id.
[11] An attorney’s performance is deficient if it falls below an objective standard of
reasonableness based on prevailing professional norms. Woodson v. State, 961
N.E.2d 1035, 1041 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), trans. denied. A strong presumption
arises that counsel rendered adequate assistance and made all significant
decisions in the exercise of reasonable professional judgment. McCullough v.
State, 973 N.E.2d 62, 74 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), trans. denied. “[A] defendant
must offer strong and convincing evidence to overcome this presumption.” Id.
Isolated poor strategy, inexperience, or bad tactics does not necessarily
constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. Id.
[12] In order to demonstrate 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. A reasonable probability is a
probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Weisheit v.
State, 109 N.E.3d 978, 983 (Ind. 2018) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104
S. Ct. 2052).
[13] In deciding whether counsel rendered ineffective assistance, we will begin by
looking at the alleged error. Williams argues that his counsel’s performance
was deficient by failing to object to the erroneous final jury instructions, and
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PC-1522 | February 11, 2019 Page 7 of 16
accordingly, that Williams was prejudiced. “The trial court has broad
discretion as to how to instruct the jury, and we generally review that discretion
only for abuse.” Kane v. State, 976 N.E.2d 1228, 1231 (Ind. 2012) (citing Mayes
v. State, 744 N.E.2d 390, 394 (Ind. 2001)). “Where, however . . . the appellant’s
challenge to the instruction is based on the first of our three considerations—an
argument that the instruction was an incorrect statement of the law—we review
the trial court’s interpretation of that law de novo.” Kane, 976 N.E.2d at 1231
(citing LaPorte Cmty. Sch. Corp. v. Rosales, 963 N.E.2d 520, 523 (Ind. 2012)).
[14] The PC court agreed that Instruction 4 was erroneous, as did the State. See
Appellee’s Br. p. 13 (stating that “the State agreed only that Final Instruction 4
was erroneous . . .”). We agree that Instruction 4 incorrectly stated the law.
The trial court was incorrect to instruct the jury that sudden heat is an element
of voluntary manslaughter. See Watts v. State, 885 N.E.2d 1228, 1232 (Ind.
2008) (holding that, with voluntary manslaughter, “sudden heat is a mitigating
factor, not an element, that the State must prove in addition to the elements of
murder. Though counterintuitive, it is logical: if a mitigating factor is present,
the offense is certainly lesser than, if not included in, the greater offense”)
(emphasis supplied). Indeed, the voluntary manslaughter statute itself identifies
sudden heat as a mitigating factor. Indiana Code Section 35-42-1-3 states:
(a) A person who knowingly or intentionally:
(1) kills another human being; or
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PC-1522 | February 11, 2019 Page 8 of 16
(2) except as provided in section 6.5 of this chapter, kills a
fetus in any stage of development;
while acting under sudden heat commits voluntary
manslaughter, a Level 2 felony.
(b) The existence of sudden heat is a mitigating factor that
reduces what otherwise would be murder under section 1(1)
of this chapter to voluntary manslaughter.
[15] Similarly, with Instruction 8, it was incorrect to instruct the jury that if it found
that the State did not prove Williams committed murder, it could then consider
whether Williams committed voluntary manslaughter. See McDowell v. State,
102 N.E.3d 924, 935-36 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (summarizing our supreme court’s
conclusion in Watts, that “[w]ith voluntary manslaughter, the failure to prove
one of the essential elements of the greater offense of murder is also the failure
to prove one of the essential elements of the lesser offense of voluntary
manslaughter”), trans. denied. In other words, the jury could have considered
both murder and voluntary manslaughter simultaneously if there was evidence
of sudden heat.
[16] Despite the erroneous jury instructions, and trial counsel’s failure to object, the
PC court found that Williams was not prejudiced by his trial counsel’s
performance. Consequently, we will consider whether there is a reasonable
probability that, but for trial counsel’s errors, the result of the proceeding would
have been different. See Johnson v. State, 901 N.E.2d 1168, 1174 (Ind. Ct. App.
2009) (finding that, because the violation at issue was harmless error, the result
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PC-1522 | February 11, 2019 Page 9 of 16
of the trial would not have been different, and therefore, the defendant could
not demonstrate prejudice).
[17] Determining whether Williams was prejudiced necessarily requires us to
consider whether there was evidence of sudden heat. Because Williams was
convicted of murder, and not the lesser included offense of voluntary
manslaughter, we must determine whether there was evidence of sudden heat to
justify the instruction for voluntary manslaughter. If there was no evidence of
sudden heat, the instruction on voluntary manslaughter was harmless, because
a conviction on the same could not have been sustained. See Wilkins v. State,
716 N.E.2d 955, 957 (Ind. 1999) (finding that a voluntary manslaughter
instruction in the absence of sudden heat was harmless because the “instruction
merely presented the jury with another lesser option that it rejected”). Evidence
of sudden heat is a key consideration when determining whether an instruction
on voluntary manslaughter should be given because,
[a]lthough [v]oluntary [m]anslaughter is a lesser-included offense
of [m]urder, it is an atypical example of a lesser-included offense.
In the case of [v]oluntary [m]anslaughter, sudden heat is a
mitigating factor that the State must prove in addition to the
elements of murder. Sudden heat must be separately proved and,
therefore, if there is no serious evidentiary dispute over sudden
heat, it is error for a trial court to instruct a jury on voluntary
manslaughter in addition to murder.
Suprenant v. State, 925 N.E.2d 1280, 1282 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PC-1522 | February 11, 2019 Page 10 of 16
[18] Sudden heat “exists when a defendant is ‘provoked by anger, rage, resentment,
or terror, to a degree sufficient to obscure the reason of an ordinary person,
prevent deliberation and premeditation, and render the defendant incapable of
cool reflection.’” Brantley v. State, 91 N.E.3d 566, 572 (Ind. 2018) (quoting Isom
v. State, 31 N.E.3d 469, 486 (Ind. 2015), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 1161 (2016)).
[19] In reviewing the jury trial transcript, the evidence of conflict between Williams
and Beard includes the following:
1. Brian Ragulen, a witness, told Officer Nielsen that just before
the shooting, he overheard an individual shout “B****, why
won’t you let me see her.” Tr. Vol. I p. 156. At the trial,
Ragulen also denied telling Officer Nielsen about this
argument.
2. Brandi Phillips, Williams’ girlfriend, stated that on January
28, after Williams and Beard came to pick her up, they argued
several times. Phillips could not testify as to the specifics
regarding the argument because she “really wasn’t paying
attention to it like that.” Tr. Vol. II p. 104. However, Phillips
did state that the group “ran down 5th, and something was
said[,]” and specifically that “[Williams] and [Beard] was [sic]
arguing.” Id. Phillips stated the men “had words[,]” but she
did not recall what those words were. Id. at 112.
3. At some point during their drive, Williams went to his
mother’s house. Williams became angry because
“[s]omebody had busted out his mama [sic] window, and he
was going crazy. His mama was trying to calm him down.”
Id. at 105. At this point, Williams got a gun from inside his
mother’s house.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PC-1522 | February 11, 2019 Page 11 of 16
4. After leaving Williams’ mother’s house, the argument
between Beard and Williams continued. The argument,
according to Phillips, centered around Williams’ perception
that Beard was “reaching for something.” Id. at 112.
According to Phillips, Beard wanted Williams to take the two
women in the vehicle home that evening, but Williams
declined.
5. Phillips testified that Williams “pulled a gun” on Beard
stating: “They had some words. [Williams] was driving,
stopped, put it in drive [sic], got out the truck, pulled the gun
on [Beard].” Id. at 116. Williams then told Beard that he
“loved him.” Id. at 117. During this time, Phillips testified
that Beard had his hand on “[a] Seagram’s bottle.” Id. at 154.
Williams was also quoted as saying to Beard “You don’t
think I won’t” around this same time. Id. Williams then got
back in the car and the group went to a “crackhead[‘s]” house
on Taft street. Id. at 118.
6. Once at the house, Williams and Beard continued arguing.
According to Phillips, “[Williams] told [Beard] if he do [sic]
something, that he was going to get him. [Beard] walked
back to his truck, got in a – [Williams] pull[ed] the gun out
and [said], ‘If you pull out, I’m going to fan this up.’” Id. at
124.
7. Then, “[Beard] . . .walked up to [Williams], [Williams] shot
him.” Id. Phillips said that Beard just walked up to Williams
“like a normal person.” Id. at 129. Phillips seemed to believe
that Williams may have thought Beard was going to “do
something” to Williams because “Anybody would think
that.” Id. Beard walked up to Williams very close—
approximately three inches away from Williams’ face.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PC-1522 | February 11, 2019 Page 12 of 16
8. When asked if Williams said anything during the exchange,
Phillips testified “[Williams] told him he love[d] him, ‘Don’t
do it. Don’t do it.’ I mean, I don’t remember all of it.” Id. at
130. Beard’s hands were down at his side when he
approached Williams.
9. Finally, there was also testimony from Ernest Eskridge, who
testified that earlier in the evening, approximately forty-five
minutes before the shooting, he and Williams got into a
“verbal argument.” Tr. Vol I p. 96.
[20] We agree with the PC court that, while there was evidence of ongoing conflict
between Williams and Beard, and that Williams was angry the evening of the
shooting, this does not amount to a finding of sudden heat. We believe an
example from our supreme court is illustrative. In Brantley, our supreme court
found evidence of sudden heat, “although scant[,]” when:
Brantley consistently testified that the situation in his home on
July 14, 2014, was chaotic. Central to this chaos was Bruce,
whose temper raged and anger oscillated between Martha and
Brantley. But this situation was not a one-off occurrence, and it
would be misguided to think of it in a vacuum. Brantley’s
relationship with Bruce was strained. Bruce saw Brantley as a
financial burden on him and Martha. Brantley had witnessed
Bruce’s domestic violence against his sister and nephew.
Brantley also knew that Bruce had a history of mental illness.
And crucially, Brantley knew that Bruce kept sharp objects in his
chair. So, when Bruce angrily rose from his chair, after telling
Brantley he was “getting ready to get rid of all his problems right
now” and Brantley’s eye caught something shiny in Bruce’s hand,
it was well within the jury’s province to consider whether
Brantley experienced terror and had the sudden impetus to kill.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PC-1522 | February 11, 2019 Page 13 of 16
Brantley, 91 N.E.3d at 572.
[21] In Williams’ case, the evidence was simply that Williams and Beard argued the
evening Williams shot Beard. There was no evidence of the actual substance of
the argument between Williams and Beard. There was no evidence that their
relationship, generally, was strained. In fact, Williams told Beard he loved him
earlier in the night. Every argument or disagreement between parties does not
amount to sudden heat. See Suprenant, 925 N.E.2d at 1282 (concluding “[a]nger
alone is not sufficient to support an instruction on sudden heat. . . . Nor will
words alone ‘constitute sufficient provocation to warrant a jury instruction on
voluntary manslaughter,’ and this is ‘especially true’ when the words at issue
are not intentionally designed to provoke the defendant, such as fighting
words.”) (quoting Allen v. State, 716 N.E.2d 449, 452 (Ind. 1999)).
[22] Because the evidence did not support the existence of sudden heat, there is no
reasonable probability that the outcome of the jury trial would have been
different. Accordingly, Williams was not prejudiced by trial counsel’s failure to
object to the erroneous instructions. The PC court properly denied Williams’
claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
B. Appellate Counsel
[23] Williams also argues that his appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance
because “Williams was entitled to the instructions on voluntary manslaughter[,
therefore,] appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising the issue on direct
appeal.” Appellant’s Br. p. 18. Had he done so, according to Williams, “the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PC-1522 | February 11, 2019 Page 14 of 16
result of the appeal would have been different as the erroneous instructions
given by the lower court would have been found to constitute fundamental
error.” Id.
[24] “Our standard of review for claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel
is the same as for trial counsel’s ineffective assistance.” Jervis v. State, 28 N.E.3d
361, 369 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (citing Fisher v. State, 810 N.E.2d 674, 676 (Ind.
2004)), trans. denied. There are three categories of alleged appellate counsel
ineffectiveness. See Bieghler v. State, 690 N.E.2d 188, 193 (Ind. 1997), cert.
denied, 525 U.S. 1021, 119 S. Ct. 550 (1998). The three categories are: (1)
denying access to appeal; (2) waiver of issues; (3) failure to present issues well.
See id. Williams’ claim falls in the second category, because he argues that
appellate counsel did not raise a particular issue. “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.” Daugherty v. State, 52
N.E.3d 885, 890 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied.
[25] Because we find that trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance by failing
to challenge the erroneous jury instructions, we find that appellate counsel was
similarly not ineffective. Even if appellate counsel had raised the issue on direct
appeal, this court would have reached the same conclusion that we have here.
Accordingly, Williams has not met his burden in proving that he was
prejudiced by appellate counsel’s performance. The PC court properly denied
Williams’ claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PC-1522 | February 11, 2019 Page 15 of 16
Conclusion
[26] Williams’ trial counsel and appellate counsel did not render ineffective
assistance. Accordingly, the PC court did not err in denying Williams’ petition
for PCR. We affirm.
[27] Affirmed.
Brown, J., and Altice, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PC-1522 | February 11, 2019 Page 16 of 16