Mark Lax v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: April 22, 2015
• Docket: 71A04-1409-PC-417
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Apr 22 2015, 6:39 am Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Doug A. Bernacchi Gregory F. Zoeller Michigan City, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

Michael Gene Worden Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Mark Lax, April 22, 2015

Appellant-Petitioner, Court of Appeals Case No. 71A04-1409-PC-417 v. Appeal from the St. Joseph Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable John M. Marnocha, Appellee-Respondent. Judge

Cause No. 71D02-1009-PC-41

Najam, Judge.

Statement of the Case [1] Mark Lax appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for post-

conviction relief. Lax raises two issues for our review:

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1409-PC-417 | April 22, 2015 Page 1 of 12 1. Whether his guilty plea was supported by an adequate factual basis.

2. Whether he received ineffective assistance from his trial counsel.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [3] On July 28, 2008, Lax went to a gathering at a home in South Bend. An

argument between Lax and the homeowner and some guests ensued, and Lax

was asked to leave. Lax left but returned later with a handgun and again got

into an argument with several people. Herman Troop1 was present and, when

Lax began waving the handgun around, Troop confronted Lax. The two

struggled for possession of the handgun, the handgun went off, and Troop was

struck by the bullet. Lax fled, and Troop died from his wound. Several

witnesses identified Lax as the shooter to police, and Lax turned himself in later

that day.

[4] On July 30, the State charged Lax with murder, a felony. On August 3, 2009,

after voir dire but before the start of his trial, Lax accepted a plea agreement

from the State. Pursuant to that agreement, Lax pleaded guilty to voluntary

manslaughter, as a Class A felony, the State agreed to dismiss the murder

charge, and the parties agreed that Lax would be free to argue his sentence but

1 There is clear confusion on how to spell Troop’s last name. We employ the spelling used by the court reporter during Lax’s guilty plea hearing.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1409-PC-417 | April 22, 2015 Page 2 of 12 that he would not serve an executed term greater than forty years. At the same

time he accepted this agreement, Lax rejected an alternative plea agreement

that would have required an executed sentence of thirty years.

[5] Thereafter, Lax’s counsel established the following factual basis for Lax’s guilty

plea:

MR. WRUBLE: Mr. Lax, let me draw your attention back to July 28th, 2008, about a year ago.

You were at a barbeque that evening; is that correct?

THE DEFENDANT [under oath]: Yes.

***

MR. WRUBLE: And at some point you got into an argument with some of the folks there; is that right?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.

MR. WRUBLE: And you had a gun in your possession at the time; is that right?

MR. WRUBLE: Now you at some point during this argument you were waving the gun around; is that correct?

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1409-PC-417 | April 22, 2015 Page 3 of 12 MR. WRUBLE: And you came across a gentleman by the name of . . . you didn’t know his name, but you later found out his name was Herman Chris Troop; is that right?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

MR. WRUBLE: And you and Mr. Troop engaged in some fighting; is that right?

THE DEFENDANT: (indicates affirmative)

MR. WRUBLE: You head-butted him?

MR. WRUBLE: And he hit you?

MR. WRUBLE: And you hit him with a chair?

MR. WRUBLE: And you had your gun in your hand at the time; is that right?

MR. WRUBLE: And at the time that you were engaging in this conduct with a loaded gun, you were aware that there [wa]s a high probability somebody could get shot doing that?

MR. WRUBLE: At some point you and Mr. Troop tussled over the gun; is that correct?

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1409-PC-417 | April 22, 2015 Page 4 of 12 THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

MR. WRUBLE: At some point before then, when Mr. Troop had struck you, that caused you to lose your cool, so-to-speak?

MR. WRUBLE: In fact, you weren’t thinking under a normal deliberate . . . you weren’t rational?

THE DEFENDANT: Yeah.

MR. WRUBLE: And that cause[d] you some . . . I think you told me a combination of anger, fear and some terror; is that fair to say?

MR. WRUBLE: And when you and Mr. Troop were tussling over the gun, the gun went off and Mr. Troop was shot; is that right?

THE COURT: Well, a couple of things I just want to clear up a little bit, Mr. Lax.

The gun was in your possession; is that correct?

THE COURT: And in order for a gun to go off, someone has to pull the trigger; is that correct?

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1409-PC-417 | April 22, 2015 Page 5 of 12 THE COURT: And so in the midst of all of this, you pulled the trigger, that caused Mr. Troop to die; is that correct?

THE COURT: Okay. So essentially what you’re telling me today[] is that you did act knowingly and you were not acting in self-defense . . . or at least legal self-defense; do you understand that?

Appellant’s Supp. App. at 66-70. The court accepted Lax’s guilty plea and

sentenced him to forty years executed.

[6] On July 21, 2011, Lax filed an amended petition for post-conviction relief. In

relevant part, Lax asserted that his guilty plea was not established by an

adequate factual basis and that Wruble, his trial counsel, had rendered

ineffective assistance. On his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Lax

argued that Wruble had not presented him with the thirty-year plea agreement

and that Wruble was not properly prepared for trial because Wruble did not

understand the law on reckless homicide. In light of Wruble’s

misunderstandings of reckless homicide, Lax continued, Wruble improperly

advised Lax to plead guilty to voluntary manslaughter.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1409-PC-417 | April 22, 2015 Page 6 of 12 [7] After an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court rejected Lax’s claims. In

particular, the court found and concluded that: “Lax was presented with three

separate plea proposals”; “Wruble discussed all three proposals with Mr. Lax

and recommended that he accept the binding thirty (30) year agreement”; “Lax,

under oath at the plea hearing, provided an adequate factual basis supporting

his admission of guilt”; and, “[h]ad the case not been resolved by way of a plea

agreement, Mr. Wruble was adequately prepared for trial.” Appellant’s App. at

27. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision Standard of Review

[8] Lax appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction

relief. Our standard of review in such appeals is clear:

[The petitioner] bore the burden of establishing the grounds for post[-]conviction relief by a preponderance of the evidence. See Ind. Post–Conviction Rule 1(5); Timberlake v. State, 753 N.E.2d 591, 597 (Ind. 2001). Post-conviction procedures do not afford a petitioner with a super-appeal, and not all issues are available. Timberlake, 753 N.E.2d at 597. Rather, subsequent collateral challenges to convictions must be based on grounds enumerated in the post-conviction rules. Id. If an issue was known and available, but not raised on direct appeal, it is waived. Id. If it was raised on appeal, but decided adversely, it is res judicata. Id.

In reviewing the judgment of a post-conviction court, appellate courts consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the post-conviction court’s judgment. Hall v. State, 849 N.E.2d 466, 468 (Ind. 2006). The post-conviction court is the sole judge of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1409-PC-417 | April 22, 2015 Page 7 of 12 Id. at 468-69. Because he is now appealing from a negative judgment, to the extent his appeal turns on factual issues [the petitioner] must convince this court that the evidence as a whole leads unerringly and unmistakably to a decision opposite that reached by the post-conviction court. See Timberlake, 753 N.E.2d at 597. We will disturb the decision only if the evidence is without conflict and leads only to a conclusion contrary to the result of the post-conviction court. Id.

Lindsey v. State, 888 N.E.2d 319, 322 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), trans. denied. On

appeal, Lax asserts that the trial court lacked an adequate factual basis to accept

his guilty plea and that Lax received ineffective assistance from his trial

counsel. We address each issue in turn.

Issue One: Factual Basis for Guilty Plea

[9] We first address Lax’s claim that his guilty plea was not established by an

adequate factual basis. As we have explained:

Ind[iana] Code [Section] 35-35-1-3(b) provides in relevant part that “the court shall not enter judgment upon a plea of guilty unless it is satisfied from its examination of the defendant or the evidence presented that there is a factual basis for the plea.” The factual basis requirement primarily ensures that when a plea is accepted there is sufficient evidence that a court can conclude that the defendant could have been convicted had he stood trial. Butler v. State, 658 N.E.2d 72, 76 (Ind. 1995). A finding of factual basis is a subjective determination that permits a court wide discretion which is essential due to the varying degrees and kinds of inquiries required by different circumstances. Id. at 76-77. A factual basis exists when there is evidence about the elements of the crime from which a court could reasonably conclude that the defendant is guilty. Id. at 77. Trial court determinations of adequate factual basis, like other parts of the plea process, arrive Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1409-PC-417 | April 22, 2015 Page 8 of 12 here on appeal with a presumption of correctness. Id. We typically review claims of error about pleas under an abuse of discretion standard. Id. This standard is also appropriate where, as here, the Petitioner asks that his plea be set aside through a motion for post-conviction relief on grounds that the factual basis was inadequate. See id.

An adequate factual basis for the acceptance of a guilty plea may be established in several ways: (1) by the State’s presentation of evidence on the elements of the charged offenses; (2) by the defendant’s sworn testimony regarding the events underlying the charges; (3) by the defendant’s admission of the truth of the allegations in the information read in court; or (4) by the defendant’s acknowledgment that he understands the nature of the offenses charged and that his plea is an admission of the charges. Madden v. State, 697 N.E.2d 964, 967 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998).

Oliver v. State, 843 N.E.2d 581, 588 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied.

[10] Here, there is no question that the post-conviction court did not err when it

concluded that an adequate factual basis existed for Lax’s guilty plea. As

quoted extensively above, while under oath, Lax testified to the events

underlying the charge of voluntary manslaughter, and his testimony easily

demonstrated the elements of that offense. See Ind. Code § 35-42-1-3. We

reject Lax’s arguments to the contrary on appeal.

Issue Two: Assistance of Counsel

[11] We next consider Lax’s claim that he received ineffective assistance from his

trial counsel. Specifically, he argues that Wruble did not adequately advise him

before Lax entered into his guilty plea. A claim of ineffective assistance of

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1409-PC-417 | April 22, 2015 Page 9 of 12 counsel must satisfy two components. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668

(1984). 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. at 687-88. Second, the defendant must show prejudice: a

reasonable probability (i.e., a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in

the outcome) that, but for counsel’s errors, the result of the proceeding would

have been different. Id. at 694.

[12] Lax first asserts that Wruble never presented him with the plea agreement offer

that would have required a thirty-year sentence. But Wruble testified before the

post-conviction court that he had presented that plea agreement to Lax and

Lax, against Wruble’s recommendation, had rejected the offer. And the post-

conviction court expressly relied on Wruble’s testimony in its findings of fact

and conclusions of law. Thus, Lax’s argument on this point is without merit.

[13] Lax also asserts that Wruble misadvised him on the law of reckless homicide,

which caused Lax to plead guilty to voluntary manslaughter. The premise

underlying this issue is Lax’s assertion that, had he gone to trial, he would have

been entitled to a jury instruction on reckless homicide as a lesser-included

offense to murder on the theory that the State would not have been able to

show that Lax knowingly or intentionally, rather than recklessly, fired the

handgun. See I.C. § 35-42-1-5. Thus, Lax continues, Wruble rendered

ineffective assistance when Wruble supposedly advised Lax that “the law

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1409-PC-417 | April 22, 2015 Page 10 of 12 would have prevented a jury instruction on [r]eckless homicide.” Appellant’s

Br. at 14.

[14] But our supreme court has recognized that it is “a reasonable strategic decision

for defense counsel” to avoid a jury instruction that “would have been

inconsistent with Defendant’s testimony.” Morgan v. State, 755 N.E.2d 1070,

1076 (Ind. 2001). Morgan applies here. Wruble testified before the post-

conviction court as follows:

Q. [by Lax’s counsel]: Did you explain if you went to trial, the jury would possibly be instructed to find for a lesser included charge of reckless homicide?

A. Actually, I advised Mr. Lax by letter that there was a real serious danger that the Court would not provide a reckless homicide instruction, because Mr. Lax, contrary to my advice, spoke to Detective James Taylor without counsel present, and made a claim of self-defense.

It’s quite hard to argue on the one hand that it’s self-defense, then on the other hand it’s reckless behavior.

And there is case law . . . that if you claim self-defense, you may not be entitled to a reckless homicide instruction. [See, e.g., Brown v. State, 703 N.E.2d 1010, 1021 (Ind. 1998).]

I explained all of that to Mr. Lax.

[15] Tr. at 14-15. In light of Wruble’s testimony, Lax’s assertion that Wruble either

misunderstood the law on this issue or misadvised Lax is not well taken.

Rather, it is clear that Wruble faced a reasonable, strategic choice on how to

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1409-PC-417 | April 22, 2015 Page 11 of 12 proceed at trial in the event that Lax did not plead guilty, and it was uncertain

whether Lax would have been entitled to a reckless homicide instruction. As

such, Lax cannot demonstrate that Wruble rendered deficient performance, and

the post-conviction court’s denial of Lax’s petition on this issue is not clearly

erroneous.

[16] In sum, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of Lax’s petition for post-

conviction relief.

[17] Affirmed.

Baker, J., and Friedlander, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1409-PC-417 | April 22, 2015 Page 12 of 12