Summary
The Indiana Supreme Court reviewed the dismissal of Anthony Hollowell’s pro se appeal from the denial of post-conviction relief. The court granted transfer, addressed his claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel concerning the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conspiracy conviction, and held that he failed to establish prejudice. The court affirmed the post-conviction court’s judgment.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Hollowell waived an ineffective-assistance claim based on appellate counsel's failure to challenge the two-intents element of conspiracy because he did not raise that claim in his post-conviction petition.
- Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for inadequately presenting the sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge to the existence of an agreement between Hollowell and Jenkins.
- Whether the erroneous statement in the Court of Appeals' memorandum decision concerning Hollowell's possession of the marked buy money created a reasonable probability of a different result on direct appeal.
Holdings
- A specific ineffective-assistance theory not presented in the post-conviction petition is waived on appeal under Indiana Post-Conviction Rule 1(8).
- Hollowell failed to establish ineffective assistance of appellate counsel because, even if counsel should have presented the agreement issue more specifically, there was no reasonable probability that the direct appeal would have had a different result.
Key quotations
“To prevail on appeal from the denial of post-conviction relief, a petitioner must show that the evidence as a whole leads unerringly and unmistakably to a conclusion opposite that reached by the post-conviction court.” (at 6)
“Here Hollowell has not persuaded us that a more robust presentation of this claim by appellate counsel would have yielded a different outcome.” (at 10)
Factual background
Hollowell was convicted of conspiring with Grant Jenkins to deal cocaine after an undercover transaction involving a confidential informant and an undercover detective. The evidence showed that Jenkins arranged for cocaine to be delivered by a person in a Dodge Ram truck, that Hollowell arrived in such a truck and interacted with Jenkins, and that Jenkins delivered cocaine to the undercover detective after money was passed to the truck's driver. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but mistakenly stated that Hollowell possessed the marked buy money when stopped. In post-conviction proceedings, Hollowell claimed appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge more specifically the sufficiency of the evidence supporting an agreement to conspire.
Procedural history
Hollowell was convicted of conspiracy to deal in cocaine and sentenced to sixteen years. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction and sentence. After an evidentiary hearing, the Marion Superior Court denied his petition for post-conviction relief. The Court of Appeals dismissed Hollowell's appeal from that denial, but the Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer, vacated the dismissal, considered the merits, and affirmed the post-conviction judgment.