Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowThe Indiana Court of Appeals on Thursday upheld the denial of a post-conviction relief for a pro se litigant who argued he was denied a fair hearing seeking relief from multiple child molesting convictions.
The decision affirmed the post conviction court in Jesse L. Rose v. State of Indiana, 09A04-1708-PC-1759. Jesse Rose argued that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel when he was convicted in 2012 of four counts of Class A felony child molesting.
Serving as his own counsel at his PCR hearing before Cass Superior Judge Rick Maughmer, Rose asked the judge if his former public defender would be at the hearing, and Maughmer replied that he had been subpoenaed and “better be here. But as a witness, not as your attorney.”
The counselor, Michael Boonstra, arrived while Rose continued to present evidence. “When asked if he had additional witnesses, Rose responded, ‘I don’t have no witnesses. I just got really questions from, from my attorney, ex-attorney whatever,’” Judge Melissa May wrote, “However, when then asked, ‘Do you have other witnesses that you would like to call?[,]’ … Rose did not call Boonstra. The PCR court asked him again, ‘So, do you want to call anybody else?’ … Rose responded, ‘Nope. I really don’t have nobody else.’”
Both Rose and the state then proceeded to closing arguments, but Rose then asked the court to call Boonstra, which the trial court denied after the state objected to reopening evidence. The court’s exchange with Rose indicated evidence had been closed and Rose had been asked multiple times prior if he had witnesses.
“We cannot agree with Rose that he was denied an evidentiary hearing or that the PCR court ‘failed to provide [him] with a procedurally fair hearing,’” the COA held. “He was allowed to subpoena Boonstra, Boonstra appeared for the hearing, and the PCR court asked Rose multiple times if he had witnesses to call, but Rose did not call Boonstra as a witness. The PCR court noted in its order that Boonstra was not only present for the hearing but also ‘sat across from Rose and directly behind [the State].’”
The panel also concluded the PCR court provided sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law to deny Rose’s petition for relief.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.