FILED
Jul 31 2020, 8:47 am
CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Jeffrey A. Baldwin Curtis. T. Hill, Jr.
Tyler D. Helmond Attorney General
Voyles Vaiana Lukemeyer Baldwin &
Webb Ellen H. Meilaender
Indianapolis, Indiana Supervising Deputy Attorney
General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Jerry Jones, July 31, 2020
Appellant-Petitioner, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-PC-3051
v. Appeal from the Dearborn Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable James D.
Appellee-Respondent Humphrey, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
15C01-1712-PC-19
Crone, Judge.
Case Summary
[1] Jerry Jones appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR),
arguing that the post-conviction court clearly erred in determining that he failed
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-PC-3051 | July 31, 2020 Page 1 of 23
to demonstrate that his guilty plea counsel provided ineffective assistance.
Finding that he either failed to establish or waived the alleged errors, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] Between July 1 and August 20, 2014, Jones, his wife Chauntel, and Anita
Smith, with the intent to commit the crime of level 2 felony dealing in
(manufacturing) methamphetamine in an amount over ten grams, agreed to
commit that crime; and in furtherance of that agreement, Smith provided Jones
with lye, cold packs, lithium batteries, and pseudoephedrine, and/or Jones
manufactured methamphetamine. On August 20, 2014, Dearborn County
Sheriff’s Department officers obtained and simultaneously executed search
warrants for Smith’s residence and Jones’s residence. Ex. Vol. at 11-13. At
Jones’s residence, police found sources and potential sources of
pseudoephedrine, lithium, sulfuric acid, organic solvents, hydrochloric acid,
ammonium nitrate, and sodium hydroxide, and items used to manufacture
methamphetamine including multiple plastic bottles containing white sludge
and black flakes, multiple coffee filters with white residue, plastic bags with
white residue, and a bowl containing white powder. Id. Police also found six
firearms. Id., Tr. Vol. 2 at 36.
[3] On August 22, 2014, the State charged Jones, Chauntel, and Smith with
committing the following crimes between March 2014 and August 20, 2014:
Count 1, level 2 felony dealing in (manufacturing) methamphetamine in an
amount less than ten grams but more than five grams where an enhancing
circumstance applied; Count 2, level 6 felony maintaining a common nuisance;
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-PC-3051 | July 31, 2020 Page 2 of 23
and Count 3, level 2 felony conspiracy to commit dealing in (manufacturing)
methamphetamine, and in furtherance of their agreement Smith provided Jones
and Chauntel with lye, instant cold packs, lithium batteries, and
pseudoephedrine, which are precursors used to manufacture
methamphetamine. Ex. Vol. at 6. Jones was arrested, and at the police station,
he waived his rights and gave a videotaped statement, in which he admitted
that he had been manufacturing methamphetamine. Id. at 13.
[4] Attorney Kevin Moser was retained by family members to represent Jones and
Chauntel. Tr. Vol. 2 at 6-7. Prior to entering his appearance in their cases,
Moser spoke separately to Jones and Chauntel, who were being held in the
detention center following their arrest, to advise them of the “concerns of dual
representation” and to make sure that his representation of both would not
create “some kind of irreconcilable conflict.” Id. at 9, 29, 34. Jones and
Chauntel both consented to his joint representation and signed a written waiver
of any conflict of interest. Jones’s written waiver is not in the record before us. 1
Id. at 34.
[5] The prosecutor offered Jones a plea agreement, pursuant to which Jones would
agree to plead guilty to Count 3, level 2 felony conspiracy to dealing in
(manufacturing) methamphetamine, and in exchange the State would dismiss
the remaining counts and recommend a sentence of thirty years with ten years
1
At Jones’s request, the post-conviction court took judicial notice of the court file from the underlying case,
but Jones did not offer the written conflict-of-interest waiver as a separate exhibit.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-PC-3051 | July 31, 2020 Page 3 of 23
suspended. Ex. Vol. at 16-17. After reviewing the State’s discovery, including
Jones’s videotaped confession, Moser believed that this was a favorable plea
agreement for Jones. Tr. Vol. 2 at 10, 24-25. Moser knew that the prosecutor
viewed Jones as the most culpable of the three defendants and would not offer
Jones a more lenient agreement. Id. at 19. The prosecutor had told Moser that
the State would seek consecutive sentences if the case went to trial. Id. at 20.
In addition, Smith’s counsel had informed Moser that Smith was willing to
testify against Jones in exchange for a plea deal. Id. at 27. Moser believed that
Jones would not “do better at trial if he went to trial” and that if he went to
trial, “he could potentially get more time.” Id. at 24. Moser also knew that
Jones did not want to testify against his wife and “wanted to protect his wife
and get it over with.” Id. Neither Jones nor his wife “ever suggested even once
that they were interested in testifying against the other one. … [T]hey stayed
true to each other the entire time.” Id. at 21-22.
[6] On January 21, 2015, Jones pled guilty pursuant to the plea agreement. At the
guilty plea hearing, the trial court noted that Jones filed a written conflict-of-
interest waiver on October 28, 2014, and that they had previously discussed a
waiver of conflict in the matter. Ex. Vol. at 26-27. The trial court then asked
Moser to reiterate the significance of the waiver to Jones, and Moser explained,
As we discussed earlier, and as we’re discussing again today, you
have the right to independent counsel at all times. That having
me represent both of you throughout this proceeding could
present a potential conflict of interest. …. Are you today telling
the Judge that you waive any potential conflict of interest in this
case pursuant to the waiver that you filed earlier[?]
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-PC-3051 | July 31, 2020 Page 4 of 23
Id. at 27 (repetitions and hyphens omitted). Jones affirmed that he was. Id.
Jones also testified that he was satisfied with Moser’s representation. Id. at 28.
The State moved to amend Count 3 to allege that Jones committed conspiracy
to manufacture methamphetamine in an amount greater than ten grams
between July 1 and August 20, 2014, thereby bringing the dates of the criminal
conduct under the revised criminal code. Id. at 28-29. Jones had no objection,
and the trial court granted the State’s motion to amend.
[7] On December 7, 2017, Jones, by counsel, filed a petition for post-conviction
relief, alleging that his guilty plea counsel provided ineffective assistance by
representing both him and his wife, which presented counsel with a conflict of
interest; failing to challenge the State’s amendment to the charging information,
thereby denying Jones the benefit of being sentenced under the allegedly more
favorable prior version of the criminal code; and allegedly incorrectly advising
him that he could be convicted of both Counts 1 and 3 and receive consecutive
sentences for the convictions. Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 9-11.
[8] On May 14, 2019, the post-conviction court held an evidentiary hearing, at
which Jones and Moser testified. The parties filed proposed findings of fact and
conclusions of law. On December 16, 2019, the post-conviction issued an
order, finding that Jones failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that
he received ineffective assistance of counsel and denying Jones’s petition for
post-conviction relief. This appeal ensued.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-PC-3051 | July 31, 2020 Page 5 of 23
Discussion and Decision
[9] Jones appeals the denial of his PCR petition. We observe that “[p]ost-
conviction proceedings are civil proceedings in which a defendant may present
limited collateral challenges to a conviction and sentence.” Gibson v. State, 133
N.E.3d 673, 681 (Ind. 2019) (citing Ind. Post-Conviction Rule 1(1)(b)), petition
for cert. filed, (July 6, 2020). “The scope of potential relief is limited to issues
unknown at trial or unavailable on direct appeal.” Id. A defendant who files a
petition for post-conviction relief, “bears the burden of establishing grounds for
relief by a preponderance of the evidence.” Ind. Post-Conviction Rule 1(5);
Humphrey v. State, 73 N.E.3d 677, 681 (Ind. 2017). Because the defendant is
appealing from the denial of post-conviction relief, he is appealing from a
negative judgment:
Thus, the defendant must establish that the evidence, as a whole,
unmistakably and unerringly points to a conclusion contrary to
the post-conviction court’s decision. In other words, the
defendant must convince this Court that there is no way within
the law that the court below could have reached the decision it
did. We review the post-conviction court’s factual findings for
clear error, but do not defer to its conclusions of law.
Wilkes v. State, 984 N.E.2d 1236, 1240 (Ind. 2013) (citations and quotation
marks omitted). We will not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of
witnesses and will consider only the probative evidence and reasonable
inferences flowing therefrom that support the post-conviction court’s decision.
Hinesley v. State, 999 N.E.2d 975, 981 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied (2014).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-PC-3051 | July 31, 2020 Page 6 of 23
[10] Jones maintains that he is entitled to post-conviction relief because he was
denied the right to effective assistance of counsel guaranteed by the Sixth
Amendment to the United States Constitution. See Strickland v. Washington, 466
U.S. 668, 686 (1984) (“[T]he right to counsel is the right to effective assistance
of counsel.”) (quoting McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 771, n.14 (1970)).
When considering a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we strongly
presume “that counsel rendered adequate assistance and made all significant
decisions in the exercise of reasonable professional judgment.” Weisheit v. State,
109 N.E.3d 978, 983 (Ind. 2018), cert. denied (2019). A defendant must offer
strong and convincing evidence to overcome this presumption. Ritchie v. State,
875 N.E.2d 706, 714 (Ind. 2007).
[11] We evaluate an ineffective assistance of counsel claim with the two-part test
articulated in Strickland, 466 U.S. 668. Humphrey, 73 N.E.3d at 682. First,
“‘the defendant must show deficient performance: representation that fell below
an objective standard of reasonableness, committing errors so serious that the
defendant did not have the ‘counsel’ guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.’”
Id. (quoting McCary v. State, 761 N.E.2d 389, 392 (Ind. 2002)). Second, the
defendant must show prejudice. Id. In the context of a guilty plea, the
prejudice prong of the Strickland test focuses on whether counsel’s deficient
performance affected the outcome of the plea process. Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S.
52, 59 (1985). To satisfy the prejudice requirement, the petitioner therefore
must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he
would not have pled guilty. Id. “[T]o prove they would have rejected the guilty
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-PC-3051 | July 31, 2020 Page 7 of 23
plea and insisted on trial, defendants must show some special circumstances
that would have supported that decision. Defendants cannot simply say they
would have gone to trial, they must establish rational reasons supporting why
they would have made that decision.” Bobadilla v. State, 117 N.E.3d 1272, 1284
(Ind. 2019).
Section 1 - Jones has failed to carry his burden to show that
joint representation resulted in an actual conflict of interest
that adversely affected counsel’s performance.
[12] Jones first argues that he received ineffective assistance because his guilty plea
counsel had an actual conflict of interest arising from his joint representation of
Jones and his wife that adversely impacted his representation of Jones. The
Sixth Amendment right to counsel includes the right to representation by an
attorney who does not owe conflicting duties to other defendants. Williams v.
State, 529 N.E.2d 1313, 1315 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988) (citing Holloway v. Arkansas,
435 U.S. 475, 481 (1978)). However, joint representation of codefendants is not
a per se violation of the constitutional guarantee of effective assistance of
counsel. Id. (citing Holloway, 435 U.S. at 482). As this Court has previously
observed, the United States Supreme Court explained the reason for this rule as
follows:
This principle recognizes that in some cases multiple defendants
can appropriately be represented by one attorney; indeed, in
some cases, certain advantages might accrue from joint
representation. In Mr. Justice Frankfurter’s view: “Joint
representation is a means of insuring against reciprocal
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-PC-3051 | July 31, 2020 Page 8 of 23
recrimination. A common defense often gives strength against a
common attack.”
T.C.H. v. State, 714 N.E.2d 1162, 1166 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (quoting Holloway,
435 U.S. at 482-83), trans. denied. “Having the defense speak with a single voice
may reduce the ability of the prosecution to play the different defendants off
against each other.” Id.
[13] On the other hand, joint representation may result in a conflict of interest that
prevents an attorney from acting in the best interest of one or more of his or her
clients:
Joint representation of conflicting interests is suspect because of
what it tends to prevent the attorney from doing.... [A] conflict
may ... prevent an attorney from challenging the admission of
evidence prejudicial to one client but perhaps favorable to
another, or from arguing at the sentencing hearing the relative
involvement and culpability of his clients in order to minimize
the culpability of one by emphasizing that of another.
Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153, 160 (1988) (quoting Holloway, 435 U.S. at
489-90). Such a conflict of interest may serve as a basis for an ineffective
assistance claim. To establish ineffective assistance based on a conflict of
interest arising from joint representation, a defendant who did not raise an
objection to joint representation “at trial must demonstrate that an actual
conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer’s performance.” Latta v. State,
743 N.E.2d 1121, 1127 (Ind. 2001) (quoting Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335,
348-49 (1980)). “[O]nce the defendant has demonstrated an actual conflict and
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-PC-3051 | July 31, 2020 Page 9 of 23
an adverse effect on his lawyer’s performance, the prejudice prong of an
ineffective assistance claim is presumed. 2 Id. (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 692).
[14] Although in some cases joint representation may involve a potential for a
conflict of interest, the Sixth Amendment’s right to effective counsel also
encompasses the right to be represented by counsel of one’s choice. Id. (citing
Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 53 (1932)).
The right to counsel of choice has been described as an “essential
component” of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.... The
right privately to retain counsel of choice derives from a
defendant’s right to determine the type of defense he wishes to
present. Lawyers are not fungible, and often the most important
decision a defendant makes in shaping his defense is the selection
of an attorney. In situations where a defendant is able to retain
counsel privately “the choice of counsel rests in his hands, not in
the hands of the state.”
T.C.H., 714 N.E.2d at 1165-66 (quoting Barham v. State, 641 N.E.2d 79, 82 (Ind.
Ct. App. 1994)). Thus, under some circumstances, a defendant may properly
waive his or her right to be represented by counsel who is free from conflicting
interests. Latta, 743 N.E.2d at 1127 (citing Ward v. State, 447 N.E.2d 1169,
1172 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983)).
2
Although counsel may be subject to a conflict of interest from reasons other than joint representation, in
Johnson v. State, 948 N.E.2d 331 (Ind. 2011), the Indiana Supreme Court observed that the special rules
applying to conflict of interest have been applied by the U.S. Supreme Court only “where counsel is
conflicted because he or she is actively representing multiple parties with conflicting interests.” Id. at 334-35.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-PC-3051 | July 31, 2020 Page 10 of 23
[15] Here, before Moser filed his appearances for Jones and his wife, Jones signed a
written conflict-of-interest waiver, which he reaffirmed when he pled guilty.
The State argues that because Jones waived any potential conflict of interest
arising from Moser’s joint representation, Jones is precluded from raising an
ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on a conflict of interest. The issue
is not as settled as the State suggests, as shown by our supreme court’s
examination of the issue in Latta, 743 N.E.2d 1121.
[16] In that case, Latta and her husband were charged with the murder of their two-
year-old son. She and her husband were tried jointly and were represented by
the same counsel, whom they had retained. “Midway through the joint trial,
the State moved for a mistrial, arguing, among other things, that the testimony
of a trooper had given rise to a conflict of interest.” Id. at 1128. Latta’s
attorney told the trial court that it was the Lattas’ choice for him to represent
them. The trial court asked the Lattas whether their attorney had discussed the
risks that could be involved in joint representation and whether they wanted
him to represent both of them. Id. They answered affirmatively to both
questions, and the trial court denied the State’s motion for mistrial. Id.
[17] Latta was convicted and later petitioned for post-conviction relief on the ground
she was denied effective assistance of counsel. One of her ineffective assistance
claims was that the joint representation at trial created an actual conflict that
adversely affected her defense. Although our supreme court did not decide the
merits of Latta’s conflict-of-interest claim because it found her trial counsel
ineffective on other grounds, the court opted to discuss the issue at length to
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-PC-3051 | July 31, 2020 Page 11 of 23
provide guidance in future cases. As to the effect of Latta’s waiver of her trial
attorney’s conflict of interest, our supreme court explained,
Even if we were to conclude that Latta’s waiver of [her trial
attorney’s] conflict was knowing and voluntary, the issue remains
whether her initial waiver may serve to waive all future conflicts
and any ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on these
conflicts. Justice Marshall, concurring and dissenting in Cuyler,
thought it impossible to waive all potential conflicts, especially
where a waiver is obtained in the early stages of trial before it is
feasible to contemplate all of the possible conflicts. 446 U.S. at
354 n.1, 100 S. Ct. 1708. But the United States Supreme Court
has given us no further clear guidance on this point.… Wheat also
cited the “institutional interest” in a fair proceeding. Arguably
the proper inference from Wheat is that this institutional interest
justifies overriding the defendant’s choice of joint counsel but still
permits a waiver to preclude a later claim of ineffective
assistance. Wheat itself expressly reserved this issue for another
day, as it noted, “without passing judgment on, the apparent
willingness of Courts of Appeals to entertain ineffective-
assistance claims from defendants who have specifically waived
the right to conflict-free counsel.” 486 U.S. at 161-62, 108 S. Ct.
1692.
The post-Wheat federal circuit decisions have split on the
question of whether a waiver eliminates further claims based on
conflict. Compare United States v. Hall, 200 F.3d 962, 965-67 (6th
Cir. 2000) (reversing conviction on direct appeal because of
ineffective assistance of counsel due to conflict of interest even
though the trial court had repeatedly warned defendant of
conflict, and stating that the defendant’s waiver “does not bind
the courts”), and United States v. Swartz, 975 F.2d 1042, 1049 (4th
Cir. 1992) (a waiver obtained pursuant to Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 44(c), which places a duty on the trial court
to inform defendant of potential conflicts where defendant is
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-PC-3051 | July 31, 2020 Page 12 of 23
jointly represented, “may not serve to waive all conflicts of
interest that arise throughout the course of that defendant’s
criminal proceedings”), with United States v. Lowry, 971 F.2d 55,
63-64 (7th Cir. 1992) (any ineffective assistance claim based on
conflict of interest is barred where defendant knowingly and
voluntarily waives conflict).
Id. at 1129.
[18] The Latta court then considered the issue confronting the trial court at Latta’s
trial, noting that in Wheat, the United States Supreme Court held that the trial
court should be given wide discretion in determining whether to accept or reject
a waiver. 3 Id. at 1130 (citing 486 U.S. at 164). The Latta court agreed,
indicating that “in evaluating whether the actual conflict or serious potential for
conflict is sufficient to override the defendant’s express choice of counsel[,]” a
trial court should make the necessary inquiry to assess “the defendant’s
apprehension of the dangers of joint representation.” Id. The supreme court
explained that “regardless of the ultimate resolution of the issue left open in
Wheat, … the presumption of deference to the defendant’s choice is
3
One of the reasons that the trial court should be given wide discretion is the court’s institutional interest in
fair trials. As we explained in T.C.H.,
The [Wheat] Court noted that not only the interest of a criminal defendant but also the
institutional interest in the rendition of just verdicts in criminal cases may be jeopardized by
unregulated multiple representation. [486 U.S. at 160]. The [Wheat] Court further stated that
the trial courts, when alerted by objection from one of the parties, have an independent duty to
ensure that criminal defendants receive a trial that is fair and does not contravene the Sixth
Amendment. Id. at 161. “Thus, where a court justifiably finds an actual conflict of interest,
there can be no doubt that it may decline a proffer of waiver, and insist that defendants be
separately represented.” Id. at 162.
714 N.E.2d at 1164-65 (parallel citations omitted).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-PC-3051 | July 31, 2020 Page 13 of 23
strengthened by confidence that it is an informed and individual choice by the
defendant.” Id.
[19] As for the post-conviction court’s task, the Latta court stated:
The first issue for the post-conviction court was whether, under
these circumstances, it was within the trial court’s discretion to
accept Latta’s waiver of conflict-free representation. We think
the defendant’s waiver should be presumed valid, and the burden
in post-conviction proceedings is on the defendant to prove
otherwise. If there is evidence supporting the conclusion of an
uninformed, or worse, improperly influenced waiver, the post-
conviction court must assess the defendant’s appreciation of the
risks. If knowing and voluntary, the waiver is at least entitled to
a very strong presumption of validity, and may be conclusive,
because it invokes her right to counsel of her choice. If the
waiver does not preclude a subsequent claim of ineffective
assistance, there remains the issue, as Cuyler put it, of whether
“an actual conflict of interest adversely affected [the] lawyer’s
performance.” Cuyler, 446 U.S. at 348-49, 100 S. Ct. 1708. If so,
prejudice under Strickland is presumed.
Id. at 1131.
[20] Latta makes clear that in post-conviction proceedings, there is a presumption
that a defendant’s waiver of conflict-free representation is valid, and the
defendant bears the burden of rebutting that presumption. Here, at Jones’s
post-conviction hearing, Moser testified that he explained the pitfalls of joint
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-PC-3051 | July 31, 2020 Page 14 of 23
representation to Jones. 4 The transcript of Jones’s guilty plea hearing shows
that Jones affirmed to the trial court that he had been informed that joint
representation could present a “potential” conflict of interest, that he was
waiving any “potential” conflict of interest pursuant to the waiver he had
signed earlier, and that he was satisfied with Moser’s representation. Ex. Vol. at
27.
[21] Assuming, without deciding, that Jones’s conflict-of-interest waiver was valid,
the issue remains whether that waiver bars Jones from challenging his
conviction based on an actual conflict of interest that he alleges existed during
discovery and plea negotiations. We observe that Latta was decided in 2001,
and the United States Supreme Court has not spoken further on whether a
defendant’s waiver of conflict-free representation precludes all future claims of
ineffective assistance based on a conflict of interest. The federal cases cited by
the State supporting its contention that a defendant’s knowing and intelligent
waiver of the right to conflict-free representation bars any subsequent challenge
to his or her conviction based on a conflict of interest were all decided before
Latta. 5 There have not been any Indiana cases decided since Latta that have
explored the waiver issue any further.
4
Jones notes that he testified at the post-conviction hearing that he did not receive any explanation of the
pitfalls of dual representation, but the post-conviction court was not required to credit his testimony. Jones’s
argument is merely a request to reweigh the evidence, which we must decline.
5
The State cites Lowry, 971 F.2d at 60, Gomez v. Ahitow, 29 F.3d 1128, 1135-36 (7th Cir. 1994), United States
v. Martinez, 143 F.3d 1266, 1268-69 (9th Cir. 1998), Henderson v. Smith, 903 F.2d 534, 536 (8th Cir. 1990), and
Duncan v. Alabama, 881 F.2d 1013, 1017 n.5 (11th Cir. 1989). The State also cites three cases from our sister
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-PC-3051 | July 31, 2020 Page 15 of 23
[22] We are disinclined to issue a blanket holding that a conflict-of-interest waiver
precludes all future claims of ineffective assistance based on an actual conflict of
interest. Such an absolute bar seems ill-advised given the myriad of situations
that joint representation could create a conflict of interest and the various
circumstances under which a defendant might waive a conflict of interest. For
example, Latta and this case present two very different situations. In Latta, the
prosecutor moved for mistrial, arguing that the testimony of a witness created a
conflict of interest. Latta was present to hear the testimony of the witness and
the argument of the prosecutor. The trial court itself was aware of the precise
conflict of interest and was able to question Latta about her wishes in light of
the new development. 6 Here, Jones waived the potential for a conflict of
interest at the onset of his criminal proceedings, and his case never went to trial
because he pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement. Although the trial court
states but fails to articulate why we should follow them. See Dunlap v. People, 173 P.3d 1054, 1070 (Colo.
2007) (“A defendant who validly waives the right to conflict-free counsel cannot later make a claim of
ineffective assistance due to a conflict of interest.”); Ryan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., 168 P.3d 703, 710 (Nev.
2007); State v. Demmerly, 722 N.W.2d 585, 590 (Wisc. Ct. App. 2006) (holding that when a defendant waives
the right to conflict-free counsel, he “necessarily” waives the right to assert that his counsel was ineffective
due to the alleged conflict except in rare, egregious circumstances).
6
We also note the protection afforded defendants in the federal criminal rules, for which there is no Indiana
counterpart. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 44(c) provides,
The court must promptly inquire about the propriety of joint representation and must personally
advise each defendant of the right to effective assistance of counsel, including separate
representation. Unless there is good cause to believe that no conflict of interest is likely to arise,
the court must take appropriate measures to protect each defendant’s right to counsel.
The trial court’s compliance with this rule bolsters an appellate court’s confidence that a defendant’s waiver
of a conflict of interest is valid. For example, in Lowry, 971 F.2d 55, one of the cases cited by the State, the
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals noted that the defendant had waived two prior conflicts of interest at two
prior hearings; there had been full compliance with Rule 44(c); the defendant clearly understood the dangers
of counsel with a conflict, his rights, and his options; and he made a knowing and intelligent waiver; and
therefore the defendant had forfeited any claim on that conflict of interest ground. Id. at 63-64.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-PC-3051 | July 31, 2020 Page 16 of 23
asked him to affirm his waiver at his guilty plea hearing, the trial court would
not have been aware of any conflict of interest to the extent that the trial court
in Latta was. Thus, notwithstanding Jones’s waiver of any potential conflict of
interest, we opt to examine Jones’s claim under the Cuyler standard, that is,
whether due to his joint representation, his attorney was presented with an
actual conflict of interest that adversely affected his performance. 7
[23] Jones asserts that the “actual conflict in this case arises from Moser’s
representation of both [himself] and [his wife] on very serious charges arising
from the same facts.” Appellant’s Br. at 15. However, as Jones himself
acknowledges, “not every case of dual … representation creates a conflict of
interest.” Id. (quoting Holleman v. State, 641 N.E.2d 638, 640 (Ind. Ct. App.
1994), trans. denied). Jones’s overbroad assertion begs the question of what
specific aspect(s) of this case introduced a conflict of interest into Moser’s joint
representation. For example, a codefendant’s desire to testify against another
codefendant would create a conflict of interest. Cf. T.C.H., 714 N.E.2d at 1167
(concluding there was no actual conflict where none of the codefendants
conveyed any desire to testify against the other codefendants in exchange for
dismissal or reduction of charges). Here, the evidence shows that neither Jones
nor Chauntel ever expressed any willingness to testify against each other. Tr.
Vol. 2 at 21-22. In fact, it seems that they wanted to present a united front. Id.
7
The post-conviction court did not make any findings on this issue.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-PC-3051 | July 31, 2020 Page 17 of 23
Further, it was Jones’s express wish to protect Chauntel and do what was best
for her. Id. at 22, 28. Jones contends that Moser’s loyalty to Chauntel
prevented Moser from arguing to the prosecutor that Jones did not have more
culpability than his wife, but that would have been contrary to Jones’s express
wishes.
[24] Jones also contends that Moser’s loyalty to Chauntel kept him from challenging
the validity of the search warrant. 8 Given that Jones and Chauntel were
married and lived together in the house targeted by the warrant, we fail to see
how any challenge to the search warrant would have impacted their interests
differently. Thus, any decision not to challenge the search warrant does not
appear related to a conflict of interest. Rather, it appears that the decision was
based on Moser’s knowledge that the prosecutor would not extend favorable
plea offers once pretrial litigation commenced. Id. at 17. Accordingly, we
conclude that Jones has failed to carry his burden to show that Moser’s joint
representation was burdened by an actual conflict of interest that adversely
affected his performance. Jones’s claim of ineffective assistance on this basis
must fail.
8
We reject Jones unsupported assertion that if Moser “used even basic discovery tools like a deposition, the
prosecutor would have withdrawn his offer to Chauntel.” Appellant’s Br. at 15.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-PC-3051 | July 31, 2020 Page 18 of 23
Section 2 – Jones has failed to carry his burden to show or
waived his claims that his attorney provided ineffective
assistance by advising him to plead guilty.
[25] Jones next contends that Moser provided ineffective assistance by advising him
to plead guilty to level 2 felony conspiracy to commit dealing in
methamphetamine under the version of Indiana Code Section 35-48-4-1.1 that
became effective July 1, 2014 (new version). Jones argues that he was entitled
to be charged under the prior version of Section 35-48-4-1.1 that was in effect
until June 30, 2014 (prior version). As initially charged, Jones was alleged to
have committed his offenses between March 2014 and August 20, 2014, which
included but was not limited to a time period when the prior version of the
statute was in effect. Under the new version, dealing in methamphetamine is a
level 2 felony if the amount involved was at least ten grams or at least five
grams but less than ten grams and an enhancing circumstance applied. Under
the prior version, dealing in methamphetamine was a class B felony and was
elevated to a class A felony if the amount of the drug involved weighed three
grams or more. Jones contends that he would have received a lighter sentence
under the prior version.
[26] Jones ignores that the dates alleged in the original charging information also
included a time period when the new version was in effect. The amended
charging information alleged that his criminal conduct was committed between
July 1 and August 20, 2014. Jones was not entitled to be charged and
sentenced under the prior version for criminal conduct that he engaged in after
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-PC-3051 | July 31, 2020 Page 19 of 23
July 1, 2014. Furthermore, Jones’s argument that he would have received a
lighter sentence under the prior version is without merit because it assumes that
the State would have charged him with a class B felony. There is no support for
that assumption. The prior version provided that dealing in methamphetamine
in an amount greater than three grams was a class A felony, and he was
originally charged with dealing more than that. If Jones had been charged with
a class A felony, he would have faced a sentence of up to fifty years, as opposed
to thirty years for the level 2 felony. Compare Ind. Code § 35-50-2-4 (2013)
(providing sentencing range of twenty to fifty years for a class A felony) with
Ind. Code § 35-50-2-4.5 (providing sentencing range of ten to thirty years for a
level 2 felony).
[27] Jones also maintains that Moser provided ineffective assistance by advising him
to plead guilty to level 2 felony conspiracy to commit dealing in
methamphetamine in an amount greater than ten grams because there was
insufficient evidence of weight. However, the post-conviction court found that
“Jones has not contested whether the State could prove that the agreement was
to produce methamphetamine in an amount greater than ten grams.” Appealed
Order at 4. Post-conviction claims that were not presented to the post-
conviction court are not available for appellate review. Walker v. State, 843
N.E.2d 50, 57 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied; see also Richardson v. State, 800
N.E.2d 639, 647 n.4 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (holding that petitioner waived claim
because it was not presented to post-conviction court), trans. denied (2004).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-PC-3051 | July 31, 2020 Page 20 of 23
Therefore, Jones has waived his claim that there was insufficient evidence of
the weight of the methamphetamine.
[28] Last, in a two-sentence paragraph, Jones argues that Moser told him that the
prosecutor was threatening consecutive sentences if Jones did not accept the
plea agreement. Jones asserts, “It was not possible for the trial court to impose
consecutive sentences because Counts 1 and 3 were alternative theories of the
same offense.” Appellant’s Br. at 19. Because Jones has not supported this
argument with cogent reasoning and citations to authorities, this argument is
waived. See Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a) (requiring that contentions in
appellant’s brief be supported by cogent reasoning and citations to authorities,
statutes, and the appendix or parts of the record on appeal); Casady v. State, 934
N.E.2d 1181, 1190 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (concluding that defendant waived
claim that trial court improperly admitted evidence by failing to cite rules of
evidence and case law), trans. denied (2011).
[29] Waiver notwithstanding, Jones’s argument is meritless. Count 1 alleged the
offense of dealing in methamphetamine, and Count 3 alleged the offense of
conspiracy to commit dealing in methamphetamine. In his reply brief, Jones
argues that the “Indiana Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits a court from
entering multiple convictions when there is a reasonable probability the actual
evidence used to establish the essential elements of one offense were used for an
additional challenged offense.” Appellant’s Reply Br. at 7-8 (citing Richardson
v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32, 53 (Ind. 1999). He asserts that the allegations in both
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-PC-3051 | July 31, 2020 Page 21 of 23
counts involved manufacturing methamphetamine over identical date ranges,
and that a conviction could not have been entered for both counts.
[30] As clearly explained in Coleman v. State, 952 N.E.2d 377 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011),
[T]he conspiracy statute, Indiana Code Section 35-41-5-2, …
contains elements that must be proven in a conspiracy case, and
not in a case for the underlying offense: an agreement with
another person with intent to commit a felony, and the
commission of an overt act in furtherance of the agreement. ….
Double jeopardy rules preclude a conviction for conspiracy and
the underlying offense only when the same evidence is used to
prove both the overt act committed in furtherance of the
conspiracy and the commission of the underlying crime.
Otherwise, a defendant may be convicted of both offenses.
Id. at 382 (citations omitted). Here, the State alleged that the overt act
committed in furtherance of the conspiracy to commit dealing in
methamphetamine was that Smith provided Jones and his wife with lye, cold packs,
lithium batteries, and pseudoephedrine and/or that Jones manufactured
methamphetamine. Thus, to convict Jones of the conspiracy offense, the State
could have relied on an overt act that was not the commission of the underlying
offense, in which case Jones’s convictions for both counts would not have
violated the prohibition against double jeopardy. Other than double jeopardy,
Jones does not allude to any other ground that would preclude the imposition
of consecutive sentences. Accordingly, we conclude that Jones has failed to
carry his burden to show that Moser provided ineffective assistance by advising
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-PC-3051 | July 31, 2020 Page 22 of 23
Jones that he could be convicted of both counts and sentenced to consecutive
terms.
Section 3 – Jones has waived his argument that his counsel
provided ineffective assistance by failing to file a motion to
suppress the search warrant.
[31] Jones also asserts that his counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to
file a motion to suppress the search warrant. The post-conviction court found
that Jones did not allege a claim of ineffective assistance for failing to file a
motion to suppress in his PCR petition and that he never amended his petition.
Appealed Order at 2-3. Jones does not challenge these findings or even
acknowledge that he did not raise this allegation in his PCR petition. We
conclude that the issue is waived. See Ind. Post-Conviction Rule 1(8) (“All
grounds for relief available to a petitioner under this rule must be raised in his
original petition.”); Allen v. State, 749 N.E.2d 1158, 1171 (Ind. 2001) (“Issues
not raised in the petition for post-conviction relief may not be raised for the first
time on post-conviction appeal.”).
[32] Based on the foregoing, we affirm the denial of Jones’s petition for post-
conviction relief.
[33] Affirmed.
Robb, J., and Brown, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-PC-3051 | July 31, 2020 Page 23 of 23