COA: Confusion at sentencing not enough for post-conviction relief

IL file photo

A Marion County man who learned at his hearing that, contrary to his attorneys’ advice, 10 years of his sentence was non-suspendable will still have to serve his time because he did not show the Court of Appeals of Indiana he would have rejected the plea agreement if he’d received the correct sentencing information in advance.

Edward Hamilton retained private attorney Scott Devries and Stephen Gray after police found him in his car with over 300 grams of illicit drugs. He pleaded guilty in July 2018 to dealing in in heroin and/or fentanyl in an amount of at least 10 grams, a Level 2 felony, and agreed to a sentence of no more than 15 years.

At the sentencing hearing in November 2018, Devries argued the trial court should suspended some or all of Hamilton’s sentence. The Marion Superior Court pointed to statute and noted 10 years of Hamilton’s sentence was non-suspendable. Devries replied repeatedly that he and Hamilton thought the sentence was suspendable.

Following a recess, Devries tried to convince the prosecutor to change the plea, but when that failed he told the court his client was willing to proceed.

The prosecutor then got permission from the court “just for appellate and PCR purposes” to confirm Hamilton wanted to proceed even though when he took the plea, he had thought his sentence would be suspendable.

After Hamilton affirmed he wanted to go forward with the plea, the trial court sentenced him to 14 years with 12 years executed and two years suspended to probation. He was ordered to serve 10 years in the Indiana Department of Correction and the remaining two years in community corrections.

Hamilton petitioned for post-conviction relief in October 2020. He argued his conviction should be set aside because of ineffective counsel. The post-conviction court held a hearing, and in February 2022 granted Hamilton’s petition.

The Court of Appeals reversed in State of Indiana v. Edward Hamilton, 22A-PC-703.

Citing Bobadilla v. State, 117 N.E.3d 1272, 1284 (Ind. 2019), the appellate court held Hamilton had to do more than show his attorneys’ performance was deficient. The court opined Hamilton also had to demonstrate he would have rejected the guilty plea and moved for a trial.

“The record before us is devoid of such special or unusual circumstances,” Judge Elizabeth Travitas wrote for the court. “To the contrary, here, we know precisely what Hamilton would have done had he not been misadvised. The trial court remedied the mis-advice by accurately informing Hamilton of the consequences of his guilty plea, i.e., that he was facing a non-suspendible (sic) sentence. Yet Hamilton explicitly stated that he still desired to accept the guilty plea rather than go to trial.”